4.0 GPA in College Overrated They're Saying?

[Imp]

They didn't ask me why I got a C+ in microeconomics...

Why did you get a C+ in microeconomics? Seems like there's a story there...

 

--kC

[Tcann32]

The sad part about many college programs is that you can go very deeply into debt after spending several years at the institution, and you still have developed or acquired a tangible skill of any kind. If you're a college student and get an internship in the midst of getting your degree, you'll probably be enlightened to the fact that you learned more over the summer than you have in the last few years in school. I'm not knocking education at all, I just think it's kind of odd that technical knowledge and skills are rather scarcely learned in many programs.

[WHC888]

School grades or which school you go to is irrelevant based on my own experiences, now days is all about who you know and experiences. Seize the opportunity when it's presented to you. I went to some college but never graduated, so my highest level of completed education is actually high school GED; my girlfriend has two masters and CPA, 80k debt in student loans and only making 1/3 of what I'm making.

A degree from ivy league schools or high GPA won't hurt you in life, but it's not a must.

[MtlJeff]

I got a D- in finance, an A+ in statistics, and everything in between.

[NAM2212]

I screwed around in undergrad so much that I was on academic probation and had to appear before a board to help me come up with a "graduation plan." I also worked 50 hours a week between 2 different jobs while taking a full course load in order to pay for it all. My schoolwork suffered between the working in the middle of the night and the divorce I went through my junior year. Please, please do not be an idiot like I was and get married to your high school sweetheart in college. Anyway, I got a degree in a science discipline with a 2.0 GPA and was just happy to be finished.

 

I did make a great contact at one of those jobs I had who gave me a call about 6 months before I was to graduate and asked me to come interview at his new company. This resulted in me getting hired on full time about 3 months before my college graduation. The boss let me work around my last semester and was cool about everything. That was 10 years ago and I am still with the same company. The experience was much more important than my awful GPA. I don't think I was ever once asked what my GPA was and I work for a very large company. I have held positions in about 6 different departments now and experience is what matters.

 

I was even asked to get a Masters a few years ago since the company was starting to pay for them and wanted to improve upon their career goals program. I looked into a few different Masters programs and decided to go with an MBA since I had never had a business class in undergrad. I had fun, learned a lot and graduate with a 3.85, I think.

[highergr0und]

It just comes down to whether their grades were due to a mindset of working the system for the 4.0 vs actually learning and being able to apply the concepts. It's a pretty simple thing to figure out in the first few minutes of an interview.

[J_Tizzle]

Lot of good points here.

 

I manage a group of underwriters thats usually a first job out of college/grad school, so I've seen the GPA focused hiring for sure.

 

The combo of GPA / experience are always up for debate, especially when you are hiring people right out of school. The old "how do I get experience if I can't get hired" thing. So I like to see a solid GPA in the appropriate fields (lets say a 3.00+ in accounting/finance/economics) as well as something else. So lets say you were in an organization in school, were you on an executive board, did you volunteer, etc. Did you work while going to school in a non serving/bartending capacity? Those are the things I like to see.

 

So to your question, a respectable GPA (over 3.00) and proof you didn't just party away your college time is what I like to see and think a lot of other people do as well. Honestly, a 3.00 isn't all that hard to get typically if you're smart enough and apply yourself. Because if you can't do that, you're probably not qualified for the job you're interviewing for anyways.

 

And just to add a little more, I do believe its all very industry specific and what field you're looking to get into. Some industries are very academically based and you need a solid foundation through school to come in and be a competent employee. In some other industries I don't think the grades are near as important as finishing. If you're looking for an entry level job at a CPA firm and they have 10 applicants, they're going to look at your GPA. For people to say "its about yoru personality and willingness to learn" are wrong. You should have learned everything you needed to while in school, its not the firm's job to teach you stuff you paid your own money for (or went into debt). If you're going into a sales based role, GPA isn't near as important as your personality. Very industry/role specific in my opinion.

[SilverBullets]

Lot of good points here.

 

I manage a group of underwriters thats usually a first job out of college/grad school, so I've seen the GPA focused hiring for sure.

 

The combo of GPA / experience are always up for debate, especially when you are hiring people right out of school. The old "how do I get experience if I can't get hired" thing. So I like to see a solid GPA in the appropriate fields (lets say a 3.00+ in accounting/finance/economics) as well as something else. So lets say you were in an organization in school, were you on an executive board, did you volunteer, etc. Did you work while going to school in a non serving/bartending capacity? Those are the things I like to see.

 

So to your question, a respectable GPA (over 3.00) and proof you didn't just party away your college time is what I like to see and think a lot of other people do as well. Honestly, a 3.00 isn't all that hard to get typically if you're smart enough and apply yourself. Because if you can't do that, you're probably not qualified for the job you're interviewing for anyways.

 

And just to add a little more, I do believe its all very industry specific and what field you're looking to get into. Some industries are very academically based and you need a solid foundation through school to come in and be a competent employee. In some other industries I don't think the grades are near as important as finishing. If you're looking for an entry level job at a CPA firm and they have 10 applicants, they're going to look at your GPA. For people to say "its about yoru personality and willingness to learn" are wrong. You should have learned everything you needed to while in school, its not the firm's job to teach you stuff you paid your own money for (or went into debt). If you're going into a sales based role, GPA isn't near as important as your personality. Very industry/role specific in my opinion.

 

This is pretty much exactly how I think. I started my career in the Big 4... at the time I had a 3.3ish GPA (can't remember if I graduated with a 3.3, 3.4 or 3.25,,, call it 3.3.. it was in that range) and all of the Big 4 firms wouldn't even look at your resume if you had a 3.0 or below. Flash forward 9 years and 1 massive recession, now you essentially have to have a 3.5+ in all major markets (I would say top 25 size cities) for a Big 4 recruiter to look at your resume (smaller markets, that's not necessarily true). But at that point, a 3.6 with an internship or two, is going to look every bit as good, if not better, than a 4.0 with not much else.

 

GPAs are really good for getting your foot in the door. You want a good GPA (3.0 or above) to show that you worked hard, are intelligent, and didn't just party your life away. But you also want real world experience (Internships are kind of the gold standard, college jobs are nice, being active in professional college organizations that support your major/field... things like a business fraternity, being active in the Accounting club or marketing club, etc.). Real world experience and extracurricular activities help round out a candidates experience, knowledge and skills.

 

I will also note, if your goal is to get you bachelors and then get your Masters, or get a Masters shortly after college (say like 2 years after school), then a GPA is VERY important. Its actually critically important if you are trying to go to a top tier program. That was never my desire. My desire to get real work experience after college and eventually find a deficiency in my skill set to then focus a Masters on improving that skill or redirecting my career. At this point, 9 years later, the MBA doesn't seem as necessary or interesting to me.

[huskydawg]

Oh, and you're resume will hit the trash if it's below 3.0. I won't even consider it.

 

You might be missing out, but it's your choice. I know I got my a** kicked in classes for 2 years because I went to a top 40 school and my inner city high school didn't prepare me well for college despite taking all honors and AP classes. Last 2 years went much better. I moved from one of the least educated cities to one of the most, and it was tough competing against them, but I made friends who showed me the ropes and I stepped it up, moving from a 2.2 to a 2.85. It wasn't due to partying either, I just had to switch my thinking from fact-based thinking to conceptual, applied, and deeper level thinking. As a population, sometimes the toughest competitors have been in the deepest of holes.

 

Oh, and 'you're' is a contraction not a possessive.

[SilverBullets]

Oh, and you're resume will hit the trash if it's below 3.0. I won't even consider it.

 

You might be missing out, but it's your choice. I know I got my a** kicked in classes for 2 years because I went to a top 40 school and my inner city high school didn't prepare me well for college despite taking all honors and AP classes. Last 2 years went much better. I moved from one of the least educated cities to one of the most, and it was tough competing against them, but I made friends who showed me the ropes and I stepped it up, moving from a 2.2 to a 2.85. It wasn't due to partying either, I just had to switch my thinking from fact-based thinking to conceptual, applied, and deeper level thinking. As a population, sometimes the toughest competitors have been in the deepest of holes.

 

Oh, and 'you're' is a contraction not a possessive.

 

Yeah yeah yeah I didn't check my grammar while blasting through that post from my iPhone....

 

See, the thing is, I need people who can hit the ground running... at least to an extent. Obviously there is training and an adjustment period. But I need someone who can figure it a short amount of time. The other problem is it's pretty hard to justify taking a candidate with below a 3.0 when I have a stack of resumes and most are 3.0+ with extracurriculars. I struggled my first quarter and a half in college. I had around a 2.5. But I figured out what I was doing wasn't working and I busted my a** to turn it around. I'm project based work like what I do on a daily basis, I need someone who can identify and correct issues immediately.

 

Either way, there is no real rule to selecting candidates. Everyone has their own set of standards. I think the message to the OP, whom has a very good GPA already, is to focus on being a well rounded candidate and person... don't focus solely on getting the highest GPA. A blend of experience (work, life, etc.) and GPA is a very smart route to go and will serve him/her well.

 

(Forgive any grammar errors. This post was created while sitting on my patio smoking a cigar, listening to music, and figuring out what shutters to buy for the house.... the joys of being an adult lol)

[Mych]

There are a lot of socially awkward 4.0s who struggle in a team environment. The 3.0 who bartender for 2 years is likely just as good or better as a communicator and time manager, and is likely more capable of delegating, taking responsibility, and accepting constructive criticism.

 

Also, all schools (and programs) are not created equal. Anyone who could graduate with a 2.5 from my Engineering school could have sleepwalked to a 3.5+ in most other programs. Everyone I know who transferred out cruised the rest of the way. I don't know anyone who transferred into the engineering school, lol.

 

College is about developing the ability to work and live independently. I'd love for my kids to end up with a challenging 3.0-3.5 that they had to earn, while having an active social life and building lifelong relationships. A 4.0 is great, but I'm paying for college to keep them from moving back home, so they better make some friends that'll let them crash for a month if they need to, lol.

[warfelg]

I'll comment on one part of what everyone is talking about, why the 4.0's doesn't always work out:

 

Most students who come out a 4.0 from college didn't do much else than what was required. They were most likely the students in a library on a Friday and Saturday night studying. The people that took summer and winter courses. The ones that went home most weekends. The ones that didn't have work-study jobs. They are the ones that did all the work in a group project. The pattern there is a lack of social life.

 

The students with a 3.0-3.6 likely had all of those things. Likely multiple internships too. Spent time in a club or two (not party but school organization). They developed social skills needed to succeed post-graduation.

 

Take the kid that has the 4.0 - I bet they hardly worked, did 1 internship, and it was at a small company located in their hometown. Likely did maybe one club.

Take the kid that has the 3.4 - I bet the worked every summer, did 2-3 internships; 1 that took them out of town, 2 at bigger companies. Joined multiple clubs, maybe a frat.

 

When it comes time for the interview, that 4.0 kid has issues dealing with the uncomfortable situations. The 3.4 kid has done it and is prepared.

 

Also on the topic of where you go to school:

It 100% matters. I went to 3 different colleges in my time. Duquesne University, Millersville University, Penn State University. I've got friends from all three schools out in the workforce now. The friends from Duquesne find jobs easily because it is a prestigious near-Ivy League school. Without being top 20% in your class, high school GPA of 3.75 or above, and SATs (old 1600 scale) above 1375, you weren't getting in. My friends from Millersville struggle to find great jobs, settling for lower level to mid level jobs in their field. It just isn't a well known school outside of south central PA. It's a cheap state school, and that shows when you go to get a job. My PSU Degree and all my friends from there? We get jobs easily, interviews we shouldn't get, and get brought into projects easily. And I'm talking good jobs. PSU has such a huge alumni network and they all look out for each other that the GPA almost doesn't matter as much when you have that PSU name on your resume.

 

Where you go to school matters some. If the hiring team or person knows the school you went to, I hate to say it, but they are more likely to want to talk to you. I know when I'm hiring I rather go with someone that has a degree from a place I've heard of.

 

All of that said:

 

Have great references that aren't friends, family, or hometown relations heavy. If you can get a department head or chair, an employer from an internship, that would be awesome. Personally when I'm hiring I like a random reference. Mail room person, a page, or a receptionist. Why do I like them? Your direct supervisor can tell me how you work, how productive you are, and the quality of the work. Those others? They can tell me what you are like to people in the office, if you will be a problem, how gossip-y you are.

 

Reason references matter to me, because that's the best way to learn what you are like as an employee. You train yourself to test well in interviews. Unless you make a major faux pa in the interview, you are all going to look the same to me. Maybe a question or two gets answered slightly differently here or there. The references are what sets everyone apart. If your references are good, they will put you in a light that lets me know what it's really like to have you on my team. If they aren't good, or didn't think you were good, they will just say all the same generic things about you as an employee. You do enough of those calls and you learn the talk of what it all means.

[highergr0und]

Did you work while going to school in a non serving/bartending capacity?

 

I love hiring these types of folks. Generally means they have work ethic and social skills......

[J_Tizzle]

Did you work while going to school in a non serving/bartending capacity?

 

I love hiring these types of folks. Generally means they have work ethic and social skills......

 

Like I said, its really dependent on the job. I won't interview a 2.5 GPA in marketing for an underwriting job that worked as a bartender, and you probably wouldn't interview a 4.0 computer programming major for a sales job (this is just an example). Of course its all really dependent on an interview, but the resume is what gets the foot in the door. I always try to view everyone equally once we get to the interview stage because thats stuff you can't put on a resume.

 

I mean to each is own really at the end of the day. I know what works for my group, you know what works for yours. I've hired lots of people that didn't work out but have had really good retention over the past 3-5 years just due to learning what to look for in people and I'm sure you're the same way.

 

So thats something for the OP to keep in mind as well. Sometimes people don't necessarily get past the interview stage because of fit within a group. I know we've had an open position before that we passed on everyone we interviewed because we didn't want to disrupt the current group. Thats really another thing the GPA and resume don't show, but you'll present in an interview.

[warfelg]

Did you work while going to school in a non serving/bartending capacity?

 

I love hiring these types of folks. Generally means they have work ethic and social skills......

 

Like I said, its really dependent on the job. I won't interview a 2.5 GPA in marketing for an underwriting job that worked as a bartender, and you probably wouldn't interview a 4.0 computer programming major for a sales job (this is just an example). Of course its all really dependent on an interview, but the resume is what gets the foot in the door. I always try to view everyone equally once we get to the interview stage because thats stuff you can't put on a resume.

 

I mean to each is own really at the end of the day. I know what works for my group, you know what works for yours. I've hired lots of people that didn't work out but have had really good retention over the past 3-5 years just due to learning what to look for in people and I'm sure you're the same way.

 

So thats something for the OP to keep in mind as well. Sometimes people don't necessarily get past the interview stage because of fit within a group. I know we've had an open position before that we passed on everyone we interviewed because we didn't want to disrupt the current group. Thats really another thing the GPA and resume don't show, but you'll present in an interview.

 

I'll be honest that I've done this and I want to see if others have too -

 

Personally I think resumes all look the same at this point. They will all have similar internships, work histories, course loads, likely minors too. Likely in the same clubs. If you took the names of the places off of where they worked and the applicants name off, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

So I look for something unique in the resumes that I like. Did you hold the same summer job for a long time? An unique accomplishment? Just something random that sets you aside? Sometimes I've ignored a bulk of the resume flat out looking for what's unique and outstanding. I had a resume one time where the kid wrote "Hiked the Lord Of The Rings trail in New Zealand". I brought him in purely off that, as it gave something that set him apart from everyone else looking for a job. It actually dominated the interview. Another one I saw one time was the girl put how many 5k's she's run and how much she raised for charities by doing so. She got an interview too.

 

It always reminds me of the joke (and there is some truth to it) about Yale. Sometimes they just throw out a bag full of applications just because. Sometimes if they have seen too many from one area, they start tossing the rest.

 

I also never looked at them until the job open period closed. Then I went (1) Mailed in resumes. Usually these people are serious, especially if they put my name on things in there. (2) Emailed with cover letter. Email is easy these days, but it still means they took the time to get my email address and put out the information. (3) Job board auto replies. They don't care about the job completely. They are applying for everything and anything they can.

[J_Tizzle]

Did you work while going to school in a non serving/bartending capacity?

 

I love hiring these types of folks. Generally means they have work ethic and social skills......

 

Like I said, its really dependent on the job. I won't interview a 2.5 GPA in marketing for an underwriting job that worked as a bartender, and you probably wouldn't interview a 4.0 computer programming major for a sales job (this is just an example). Of course its all really dependent on an interview, but the resume is what gets the foot in the door. I always try to view everyone equally once we get to the interview stage because thats stuff you can't put on a resume.

 

I mean to each is own really at the end of the day. I know what works for my group, you know what works for yours. I've hired lots of people that didn't work out but have had really good retention over the past 3-5 years just due to learning what to look for in people and I'm sure you're the same way.

 

So thats something for the OP to keep in mind as well. Sometimes people don't necessarily get past the interview stage because of fit within a group. I know we've had an open position before that we passed on everyone we interviewed because we didn't want to disrupt the current group. Thats really another thing the GPA and resume don't show, but you'll present in an interview.

 

I'll be honest that I've done this and I want to see if others have too -

 

Personally I think resumes all look the same at this point. They will all have similar internships, work histories, course loads, likely minors too. Likely in the same clubs. If you took the names of the places off of where they worked and the applicants name off, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

 

So I look for something unique in the resumes that I like. Did you hold the same summer job for a long time? An unique accomplishment? Just something random that sets you aside? Sometimes I've ignored a bulk of the resume flat out looking for what's unique and outstanding. I had a resume one time where the kid wrote "Hiked the Lord Of The Rings trail in New Zealand". I brought him in purely off that, as it gave something that set him apart from everyone else looking for a job. It actually dominated the interview. Another one I saw one time was the girl put how many 5k's she's run and how much she raised for charities by doing so. She got an interview too.

 

It always reminds me of the joke (and there is some truth to it) about Yale. Sometimes they just throw out a bag full of applications just because. Sometimes if they have seen too many from one area, they start tossing the rest.

 

I also never looked at them until the job open period closed. Then I went (1) Mailed in resumes. Usually these people are serious, especially if they put my name on things in there. (2) Emailed with cover letter. Email is easy these days, but it still means they took the time to get my email address and put out the information. (3) Job board auto replies. They don't care about the job completely. They are applying for everything and anything they can.

 

That is an interesting approach!

 

One thing I do when I get resumes form our recruiter is I pick through them for any type of typo/wrong word/skipped words/missing apostrophes/possessive etc. When I was in grad school I was a GA and my primary professor was the business communications person. I graded resumes from freshmen for the first 3 weeks of each semester. I've had resumes with terrible structure, typos, etc in them and even a mission statement with the wrong company in it. Since the job I interview for involves lots of technical writing along with underwriting being able to write is important. I can't count how many resumes I've thrown away just due to crazy typos/lack of attention to detail.

[Bonneville85308]

My Fortune 500 employer has hired many people straight out of college, with average or below average grades from average schools that nobody located more than 5 hours from here has ever heard of, for some pretty well paying jobs simply because the people had the right personality and relevant industry experience from summer jobs or internships. I'd say at least 95% of the time, nobody cares what your GPA was, especially after your first job. I did well in courses in my major in college but had crappy grades in unrelated courses at a lesser known school because I was focused on internships and other paid jobs. I think I'm doing alright in my career, having a 3.75 GPA vs a 2.75 probably would not have gotten me anywhere different.

[moegolfer11]

They didn't ask me why I got a C+ in microeconomics...

Why did you get a C+ in microeconomics? Seems like there's a story there...

 

--kC

 

Professor was Azerbaijani and very hard to follow. Very strict Naval Veteran. He didn't like that I missed his class for the golf team. Would always pick people and put them on the spot in front of class. My freshman self didn't have the confidence nor the proper study habits at the time, so he picked on me (often to prove a point) A LOT. He would get an "uhh" or an "I don't know Dr. E" in return. Being a liberal arts school many of our tests consisted of 5 to 6 long word questions requiring super long answers drawing from what we learned in and out of class, he did NOT like how I worded my answers...all in all I thank him for being hard on me because it was the kick in the a** I needed. Actually had him for Karate my Senior year and I was one of his best students. Sensei Dr. E liked me a lot more than Micro Dr. E. Dude had a crazy life. Ex Military, Super high up in the American Karate world, even studied Karate in Japan, spoke 5 languages and was a head economist in KY. Sometimes the professors that are the hardest on you are the ones that want you to realize your potential.

[Matt J]

It's like your handicap index, how did you get there?

 

Some people are simply geniuses and cruise through school. Others "work the system" and that's like a vanity cap. I would consider my GPA to be a sandbagger's.

 

Who's the last buy to get picked for the scramble?

 

 

[Argonne69]

One point that nobody has mentioned is the grade inflation that has occurred over the past few decades. I was a part time adjunct for 20 years, teaching graduate CS courses at several local universities. Over time I certainly felt more pressure to give better grades. A shocking number of students came into my courses ill-prepared to handle the new material. They all had the prerequisite course(s), but somehow managed to pass them without learning much. At times it was a struggle teaching the new material when I had to spend so much time covering pre-req material.

 

Many students were ill prepared for college, period. I'm talking grad school here. Students would miss an exam (i.e. unexcused), and then ask for a make-up. The fact that the exam was a) listed on the syllabus that was discussed during the first lecture, and b) discussed during the previous lecture as part of an exam preview didn't seem to phase them. How on Earth does one get through an undergraduate program without developing a basic plan for time management? Another favorite was asking for an extension on an assignment because they were busy working on an assignment for another course. Excuse me? Being able to juggle multiple courses is something that one learns in high school.

 

I recall having numerous conversations with students regarding a grade on an assignment. It's one thing if an instructor misgrades a question, as mistakes do happen on occasion. However, in the vast majority of cases the student was simply looking for points where none existed. A wrong answer is a wrong answer. Next, they'd try to ask for extra credit. 'Sorry, but if I give a student an extra credit assignment I have to offer it to everyone, and the better students will usually do them, and score higher. I made it clear that the grade scale was spelled out in the syllabus. If one wanted an 'A', then one had to score 90 or better on the assignments.

 

The sum of my experiences over time clearly pointed to the fact that less and less was being asked of the students prior to getting into my courses, and it came as a shock to many of them that they actually had to earn an 'A' by doing the work correctly. What a concept.

 

Obviously a big part of the blame can be assigned to the school administrators. It seems more universities are being run like businesses, rather than places of higher learning. The 'ol 'The Customer is Always Right' slogan appears to be the main mantra. Give the customer an 'A', and then a diploma, and get them out the door. The graduates will tell their friends and colleagues, and that will help fill the pipeline. It's bad for business to be a hard to earn degree.

[J_Tizzle]

One point that nobody has mentioned is the grade inflation that has occurred over the past few decades. I was a part time adjunct for 20 years, teaching graduate CS courses at several local universities. Over time I certainly felt more pressure to give better grades. A shocking number of students came into my courses ill-prepared to handle the new material. They all had the prerequisite course(s), but somehow managed to pass them without learning much. At times it was a struggle teaching the new material when I had to spend so much time covering pre-req material.

 

Many students were ill prepared for college, period. I'm talking grad school here. Students would miss an exam (i.e. unexcused), and then ask for a make-up. The fact that the exam was a) listed on the syllabus that was discussed during the first lecture, and b) discussed during the previous lecture as part of an exam preview didn't seem to phase them. How on Earth does one get through an undergraduate program without developing a basic plan for time management? Another favorite was asking for an extension on an assignment because they were busy working on an assignment for another course. Excuse me? Being able to juggle multiple courses is something that one learns in high school.

 

I recall having numerous conversations with students regarding a grade on an assignment. It's one thing if an instructor misgrades a question, as mistakes do happen on occasion. However, in the vast majority of cases the student was simply looking for points where none existed. A wrong answer is a wrong answer. Next, they'd try to ask for extra credit. 'Sorry, but if I give a student an extra credit assignment I have to offer it to everyone, and the better students will usually do them, and score higher. I made it clear that the grade scale was spelled out in the syllabus. If one wanted an 'A', then one had to score 90 or better on the assignments.

 

The sum of my experiences over time clearly pointed to the fact that less and less was being asked of the students prior to getting into my courses, and it came as a shock to many of them that they actually had to earn an 'A' by doing the work correctly. What a concept.

 

Obviously a big part of the blame can be assigned to the school administrators. It seems more universities are being run like businesses, rather than places of higher learning. The 'ol 'The Customer is Always Right' slogan appears to be the main mantra. Give the customer an 'A', and then a diploma, and get them out the door. The graduates will tell their friends and colleagues, and that will help fill the pipeline. It's bad for business to be a hard to earn degree.

 

Good point. I know when I was a graduate assistant I found assignments from international students that were 100% copies of each another students assignment, which would normally receive an XF grade (cheating, basically), only to find out the professor never assigned them the XF grade but allowed the students to redo the assignment. I assumed this happened because the school I attended had a very large international program that was very profitable for the university. But I'm sure he was not the only professor to do this, really created a double standard of a "normal student expectations" and an "international student expectations".

 

Sounds like you were a straight forward professor and assigned grades earned by the students. I totally respect that approach because I know several professors that didn't do that at my school, which really devalued my education "on paper", as anyone can graduate from that school, so having a BS/MBA was just par for the course because anyone could do it. Kinda sucks. But also makes you think more professors provide the opportunity for extra credit and soft grading of assignments, should really inflate the overall "normal GPA". If everyone that applies for a job has a 3.5 GPA from a university, then a 3.5 GPA doesn't really make you stick out to an employer.

[Argonne69]

Oy veh. Don't get me started on the cheating. The sad reality is that students who have to stoop to cheating usually turn to other poor students, with poor results. I rarely found a high quality assignment that was a copy of someone else's work. The worst cheaters were so bad it was almost comical. If you're going to copy somebody else's programing assignment, it just might be a good idea to a) make sure it produces the correct answer, b) correct the misspelled words, and c) remove the other student's name from the comments in the code.

 

I had one student stop by for some help with their assignment. They opened their laptop to show me their code, and staring me in the face was a folder with another students name. I couldn't resist having them double click on the folder, which of course contained a copy of the other student's program.

 

Another time a student had stopped by to have me correct their midterm exam. It seems that I had misgraded 4 problems on the test. Now, under normal circumstances it would be surprising if I had misgraded one problem, but four? I looked at the test, and on each of the problems the incorrect answer had been erased, and the correct answer written over it. The "odd" thing was that the pencil used to write the correct answer was a shade different than the original, and it had a finer point. The student insisted that their pencil had broken during the exam, and that they had used a backup pencil. Yeah, OK. It was just a minor miracle that the pencil had broken after they had finished the last question, and before they started their "review". On top of that, the correct answers were miles apart from their original answer. It wasn't like they had simply missed a decimal place. No, the "correct" answer was identical to the one I gave in class as we reviewed the exam.

 

Of course I refused to change the grade. The student threatened to go to the Department Head, and I said "Go ahead". I later learned from a fellow instructor that the student was a notorious cheat.

 

Based on my reviews, I was an excellent teacher. I was straight with the students. I didn't try to trip them up. If you learned 90% of what I taught you, you got an 'A'. I worked in the industry, and wanted them to learn the skills necessary to succeed on the job. My courses included a lot of material which wasn't covered in other sections of the same courses, as their professors weren't professional software developers, but rather full time academics. Over the years I hired nearly a dozen of my ex-students. It was a good gig, because I had first dibs on the best students.

 

I learned a valuable lesson when I was an undergraduate. I had a professor who's exams were nothing like what he taught in class. Heck, he even joked that he had received a student review once that read, "I really enjoyed this class. We covered everything. What wasn't covered in class was covered on the exams." We laughed at the time, because we thought he was joking.

[warfelg]

 

Based on my reviews, I was an excellent teacher. I was straight with the students. I didn't try to trip them up. If you learned 90% of what I taught you, you got an 'A'. I worked in the industry, and wanted them to learn the skills necessary to succeed on the job. My courses included a lot of material which wasn't covered in other sections of the same courses, as their professors weren't professional software developers, but rather full time academics. Over the years I hired nearly a dozen of my ex-students. It was a good gig, because I had first dibs on the best students.

 

I love that you worked in the field before teaching. I can't tell you how easy, as a "professional student" (What, a lot of people go to school for 12 years.) it is for me to know if you are a "career" professor or a "professional" that is a professor.

 

And what I mean by that is there are plenty of people that got into their field to do straight academia, and while there is nothing wrong with that I can tell you are teaching your knowledge and not teaching your experience. I can tell especially when I as a question about application and they don't get very clear with the answer. I call these ones "career professors" because their whole education was to have a career as a professor and do research, as opposed to actually working in the field.

 

Meanwhile, a professor like yourself, has worked for a while. So you likely don't teach by the book, you teach with injecting personal experience more. Like with coding you're possibly more likely to help a student streamline something with your experience from actually having the same problem as opposed to other professors who may not have had the same hands on experience.

 

I think (personally) more professors should be required to work a certain number of years in the field along with their education, in order to be a professor.

[Argonne69]

The sad fact is that very little in the path to getting a PhD is learning how to teach. A grad student (TA or RA) may or may not spend time in front of a class. I don't know of a university that requires any type of course in teaching before one steps in front of a class. I've had some tenured faculty as instructors that were simply gawd awful. However, they bring in the research dollars, so they're valuable to the university. I've had adjuncts that were fantastic teachers.

 

This is one of the sad realities of university life. Mom and dad send their kid away to a prestigious university with very high tuition. A big chunk of the university's ranking will be based on the faculty, and their research. However, an undergraduate may not see those highly ranked professors until their senior year, or possibly grad school. Up to that point they will be jammed into large lecture halls taught by new associate professors and/or TA's with limited teaching experience.

 

In my undergraduate CS program I had a single course in "Software Engineering". It was taught by a newly minted PhD who had never written a line of code in his life. He was simply teaching from the textbook. Now, imagine you go to medical school and take a class in surgical techniques. You'd expect the professor to have stepped foot in an operating room, right? I imagine at some point a law student will learn about courtroom procedures. You would expect the instructor to have stepped foot in a courtroom, right?

 

One of the biggest reasons I continued to teach was that I saw that many new graduates lacked many of the "real world" skills needed to hit the ground running. I knew the answer was that few of their instructors had worked out in industry. Now, that's not to say that the theoretical courses weren't valuable. However, one must strike a balance between theory and practice.

[Wriggles]

A lot of good points and comments on this topic. I'll further comment on my personal experiences. I worked as a blue collar machinist for almost ten years, after being drafted into the US Army. When the steel industry collapsed, thousands of men, young and old, were furloughed. I completed my BA in less than three years, but I was 31 when I graduated. (1984). It was a common misconception that steelworkers were overpaid lazy employees. This stigma seemed to follow when applying for jobs.

 

I actually feel that a lot of interviews I had were more from HR people just curious what a steelworker turned accountant really looked like. Rejection letters from good companies piled up. I passed the CPA exam, and then worked for $3.35 an hour (minimum wage) for two years just to get the experience requirement for state licensure. Even after licensure, I was told by a few people that I was unemployable, due to age. Companies were just not looking for staff accountants ten years older than normal.

 

To make a long story short, I worked a few more dead end jobs, and finally worked as a sole prop CPA. I had some good clients, but a modest life style. Some of my clients actually were upset with me when I retired in 2010.

 

Self employment was a blessing in disguise for me. Guys would see me on a golf course, during tax season. Unheard of, for the successful CPA's.

[JackpotJohnny]

This thread is hysterical. Listening to everyone argue the merits of their college GPA in in the real world. When they are just going to get out of college and end up with a sub 50k entry level job, and student loans they can't afford to pay back anyways.

[GolfTigerrr]

4.0 GPA gives you a little nudge out the door; the rest is Real-Life-GPA.

 

Overrated is an understatement. Very few professions require this number.

[SilverBullets]

This thread is hysterical. Listening to everyone argue the merits of their college GPA in in the real world. When they are just going to get out of college and end up with a sub 50k entry level job, and student loans they can't afford to pay back anyways.

 

A $50k a year job out of college becomes a $100k job around the age of 30-32. So yeah, the first few years suck. You're underpaid and will work harder than you think you can at times. You will work your hardest those first few years out of school and will make the least amount of money in your career. But wait about 8-10 years and that $50k desk job you had when you struggled to pay your student loans will become a $100k office job.

 

[J_Tizzle]

This thread is hysterical. Listening to everyone argue the merits of their college GPA in in the real world. When they are just going to get out of college and end up with a sub 50k entry level job, and student loans they can't afford to pay back anyways.

 

A $50k a year job out of college becomes a $100k job around the age of 30-32. So yeah, the first few years suck. You're underpaid and will work harder than you think you can at times. You will work your hardest those first few years out of school and will make the least amount of money in your career. But wait about 8-10 years and that $50k desk job you had when you struggled to pay your student loans will become a $100k office job.

 

Yeah I totally agree. You gotta take your lumps in the dregs of employment before you automatically start making bank. But its difficult to explain that sometimes to employees you're bringing in.

 

The thing about student debt is that it is in NO WAY a requirement to go to college. If you want to live the "college life" then yes it sure can be. I went to a nice enough state college that was about 30 minutes from where I grew up. I scored a 29 on my ACT and ended up with about 50% academic scholarship, then I lived at home my entire time in undergrad (which sucked some times, but it was a choice I made to not end up going in debt), drove 30 minutes each way every day to classes, and then worked 20+ hours as a minimum wage teller at a local bank to pay the rest of my schooling. Did it suck sometimes? Absolutely. But I graduated with no debt whats so ever (even bought a shiny new S-10 pickup while in school and payed it off in 3 years).

 

Its all about the choices you make, and I hate to say it, but people that default to the "student loan" crisis were probably raised with the idea that going into student debt is just the way you go to college.

[bladehunter]

No one cares about which college someone went to or their gpa. It doesn't matter for 98% of careers.

 

I have to disagree with this part. All else being equal I would have to think that someone who went to Harvard will be selected over someone who went to a state school or a less prestigious school.

 

OP, your GPA won't really matter. Your very first job out of school might use it as a screening tool but that's it. Relevant job experience is SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT.

 

It's been my experience in an interview and hearing of my wife's interviews for positions in her office that school is a first glance deal. They glance at it and say " hmm" and then move into the interview. The interview gets you hired or thrown in the trash. Period.