<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. From my observations of how previous employers hired employees and from what I heard from some HR colleagues, it’s mainly used to find who are most likely to be endowed with decent work-ethic, capable of learning quickly, being able to get up to speed and function with little/no handholding from supervisors/higher management, etc. </p>
<p>Cumulative college GPAs below 3.0 tend to signal to most of them that some of those qualities…especially work ethic and being able to function with minimal supervision may be seriously lacking. A few have came to this conclusion from being burned by such college grads in the past. </p>
<p>While ECs can enhance one’s chances, it’s rare it’ll save someone with a low GPA in the companies I’ve worked in. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is something even those on the engineering/business exec side of my extended family would agree with. Only thing is their SAT threshold would be much lower than 1800 when converting from the pre-1995 SAT scale. </p>
<p>As far as they were concerned, the only business degree anyone with some measure of intelligence, decent work ethic, and sense of initiative needs is an MBA after spending at least 2 years in the workforce. </p>
<p>This skepticism also extended to one medium-sized financial company I worked for where they had a policy of only hiring undergrad b-school majors from elite programs like Wharton, NYU-Stern, Berkeley’s Haas, UMich’s Ross, UVA McIntire, etc. Granted, some of that had to do with the fact they were burned by hiring ugrad b-school majors from lower-tiered b-schools who had issues with basic math and written communication skills from what I heard from those who were in a position to hire.</p>