<p>because they payoff isn’t always worth the effort if it means compromising on personal time or social life especially since it only really matters for your first job unless you switch right away</p>
<p>for most majors GPA is more a measure of work ethic then anything else with intelligence being a smaller factor, if it had anything to do with intelligence and didn’t vary so much depending on school and major then you wouldn’t have things like SAT’s or GMAT’s or GRE’s but only GPA.</p>
<p>I hate these “I know 2.0 students who are ten times smarter than 4.0 students” paradoxes. It seems like everybody has a million of them.</p>
<p>Like I said, GPA is just how well you did in school. It has nothing to do with how smart you are or how smart you can be. I’d say the people with the highest GPAs like school on some level. I doubt there are a lot of 2.3 students who are in love with school. You can be smart and hate school. Not everybody learns well by sitting in a desk and being talked at about something they don’t care much about.</p>
<p>for any person whom you know who has 2.0 GPA and is 10 times smarter than 4.0 students. I can find 10 people that has 4.0 GPA who are 10 times smarter than 2.0 students. </p>
<hr>
<p>Yes, I do think 4.0 student are statistically smarter and more employable than 2.0 students.</p>
<p>If you had the 2.5 GPA, you wouldn’t have the interview in the first place. </p>
<p>For those who say there are some people with 2.0 GPA’s that are smarter than those with 3.5’s or even 4.0, but just lazy… I think employers aren’t just looking for smart people, but diligent people as well. I’d rather hire a 4.0 who may or may not be smart, but definitely diligent over a 2.0 who may or may not be smart, but lazy.</p>
<p>We can CONTROL for intelligence, and then think of the distribution of work ethics for people OF that intelligence, and the distribution of corresponding GPAs for people OF that intelligence.</p>
<p>We can also safely assume that the distribution of work ethic/GPA FOR each level of intelligence has relatively high variation and does not seem to be influenced by GPA (the variation of GPA/work ethic is independent of intelligence, that is)</p>
<p>of course, the distribution of GPAs for EACH level of intelligence seems to be centered around some level that is BASED on the level of intelligence (with higher levels of intelligence having higher average GPAs. </p>
<p>Remember, if EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENT person decided to screw school, then guess what would happen? GPAs would become useless. But this is not the case (as I said before, we’re assuming that the VARIATION IN WORK ETHIC does not seem to vary with intelligence). </p>
<p>This IS, of course, assuming that intelligence can be reliably measured (which it can’t, for the individual at least).</p>
<p>But since GPAs serve as proxies for intelligence, especially when there are few other proxies for intelligence, and since they especially serve as proxies for work ethic, they remain useful for most individuals. Obviously, there probably are VERY intelligent people with 2.3 GPAs who are capable of working very hard once they’re put in a different environment. But since the distribution of GPAs among very intelligent and reliable people leaves very few of such people with GPAs of as little as 2.3 (due to the higher GPA centered-ness of people with high intelligence), few people are willing to seek out people with such GPAs (from the viewpoint of people who have to deal with a morass of applicants before starting to select for applicants).</p>
<p>This discussion is more relevant for discussing the difference between a 4.0 student with no extracurricular distractions and a 3.5 student with many. Maybe the 3.5 student is just as smart, but partied more or held a job or participated in many activities. Knowing this, I wouldn’t fault his intelligence because he still got a respectable academic result. But as an employer or admissions officer, I would have a difficult time with the 2.5 (vs the 4.0). That student is either not as smart or is lazy, neither of which is a valuable asset. And if that 2.5 student said he just didn’t care about his gpa because it didn’t really matter and implied that he was above the system, I would say good-bye and good luck!</p>
<p>Going solely by GPA, the difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 is insignificant in the eyes of potential employers. Both students would pass the initial screening or whatever you want to call it, and after that GPA’s probably don’t matter. They look at experience and interviews next, and thats what determines if you get the job or not. </p>
<p>And yes there definitely is variation and as InquilineKea said there probably are very intelligent people who can work hard but have a 2.3 gpa. But if you were hiring someone, would you spend the time interviewing that individual when you could be interviewing someone with a 3.3 instead? What are the chances that the 2.3 is smarter and/or more diligent than the 3.3?</p>
<p>I expect to have around a 3.4 GPA in Engineering after I graduate from Mudd. I’m pretty sure that still puts me in the top 1% of my engineering peers in the nation. </p>
<p>A 4.0 GPA at a state school means nothing compared to places like Caltech and Mudd, which have grade deflation and genius students.</p>
<p>Ooooh, I bet people just can’t wait to work next to you^. :rolleyes: Even if you do feel that way, you really should try to keep it to yourself when you get a job so you don’t alienate too many of your co-workers, and maybe even your boss.</p>
<p>It’s pretty much the truth, but you shouldn’t be so bitter. If you look at how many schools there are in the country, then you can see that the top dozen engineering schools are already in the top 1% easily for average student quality. If you’re average at one of those schools then you should also be in the top 1%. It’s pretty simple logic. You should try it some time.</p>
<p>And I’m not going to lie. I think if I went to the typical state school I could be stoned every day and still get a 4.0. I’ve looked at the finals and curriculum and to be honest it’s a joke compared to what we experience here (and I assume what other people experience at comparable schools). After this year I’d already be 80% of my way to a math major and have a physics minor. After my four years of college I’d basically have a triple major in political science, engineering, and math. Here all I get is a degree in engineering. The difficulty and breadth of our core is only matched by Caltech and that’s it.</p>
<p>Don’t worry though, I’ll keep that to myself after I get a job. Most people outside of engineering management don’t even know what Mudd is, but it should be easy to show skill by example. I’m happy that you are so interested in my future career, though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d say a 3.4 GPA from Mudd engineering would be seen as slightly higher in the business world. But, that’s only slightly of course. Berkeley and Mudd are both up there with the best.</p>
<p>Neither is being afraid of saying the truth. Political correctness isn’t attractive either.</p>
<p>But you’re right. All schools and students are equal. A 4.0 at Northeast Montana State is better than a 3.4 at Berkeley, Caltech, and Mudd. Their courses are just as hard and their average student is just as smart.</p>
<p>atomicfusion: Agreed with much of what you’re saying, but it’s not the content of what you’re saying that people are objecting to, it’s the tone. Just thought I’d point that out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember, Berkely is a state school, as is Georgia Tech, both of which are excellent engineering schools (though probably better for grad than undergrad). ;)</p>
<p>I realize that whatever I say will have no impact on you, but when you say things like “I think if I went to the typical state school I could be stoned every day and still get a 4.0” and “A 4.0 GPA at a state school means nothing compared to places like Caltech and Mudd, which have grade deflation and genius students”, it comes across as arrogant. I’m not saying that all schools are equal, but I am saying that you will find smart people everywhere. I also am further saying that your future co-workers will not appreciate a condescending attitude. Ok, I’m done now.</p>