blue-monkey:
a well thought out and pertinent question
Is it worth it to kill myself and get a 4.0 every semester to get summa cum laude or could I take it a bit easier, have some more fun, and get 3.8s every semester (magna cum laude) while learning more, taking more challenging but interesting classes, working on my senior thesis, etc. My school can definitely be challenging, and I'm deciding between taking better courses versus taking easier courses. These are all obviously decent GPAs but I have heard from a colleague that "perfection" is needed to get into investment banking from a non target school. I know networking, strong interview skills and technical intelligence through modeling courses are ways to make oneself competitive for recruiting, but does "perfection" constitute a perfect GPA? Also, since GPA is thought of primarily as a measure of learning and hard work (as opposed to intelligence), would a 3.81 GPA look bad in comparison to like a 3.95 or do people in finance say "beyond a 3.7, it's not really a big difference"?
heister:
Well I would assume there is a .1 gpa difference in between each step you listed. But then again I've been told I am bad at maths.
so there isn't much of a difference?
Well,, Honestly, 3.7/3.8/3.9 are all good gpas. I bet the recruiters would definitely give an opportunity to those with stellar 3.95 gpa guys. But I think the difference of 0.2 wouldn't really matter if someone with gpa of 3.7 has other strengths such as being CFA lvl 2 or 3 candidate. GPA of 3.7/3.6/3.5 would still have a chance of interview. JUST MY OPINION! Disagree? Agree?
I automatically discount anybody I see with a 4.0 GPA, as it makes me think they are too singular in focus (or if they went to Michigan that it's actually out of a 4.2 scale). If somebody's taking the time to look at your resume and you have a 3.7 and decent work experience, you'll probably get an interview. Once you're in the interview, your GPA doesn't matter. Take classes in college that you can learn from and that interest you- you'll be more well rounded and better prepared for interviews. If your grand plan is to take easy courses to get a good GPA, you probably shouldn't be in college to begin with.
Connecticut Yankee:
I automatically discount anybody I see with a 4.0 GPA, as it makes me think they are too singular in focus (or if they went to Michigan that it's actually out of a 4.2 scale). If somebody's taking the time to look at your resume and you have a 3.7 and decent work experience, you'll probably get an interview. Once you're in the interview, your GPA doesn't matter. Take classes in college that you can learn from and that interest you- you'll be more well rounded and better prepared for interviews. If your grand plan is to take easy courses to get a good GPA, you probably shouldn't be in college to begin with.
I wouldn't auto ding anyone with a 4.0 if I was screening CVs, I would at least look at how the school grades. Is it on a straight letter basis, 90-100 A 80 - 89 B? Also I would look at the rest of their CV I know kids who got a 4.0 and had a very well rounded college experience at the semi target I went to. So its not a sure fire singular focus.
Follow the sh*t your fellow monkeys say @sh*tWSOsaysLife is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne
Connecticut Yankee:
I automatically discount anybody I see with a 4.0 GPA, as it makes me think they are too singular in focus (or if they went to Michigan that it's actually out of a 4.2 scale). If somebody's taking the time to look at your resume and you have a 3.7 and decent work experience, you'll probably get an interview. Once you're in the interview, your GPA doesn't matter. Take classes in college that you can learn from and that interest you- you'll be more well rounded and better prepared for interviews. If your grand plan is to take easy courses to get a good GPA, you probably shouldn't be in college to begin with.
This is the mentality I had for the first two years, but it's tough to stand out when everybody else is bullsh*tting and pumping up their GPA. Obviously when they get to the interview, and are called out on it, it is all for nought, but it's very tough from a non target so idk what to do at this point. My school is "targeted" for certain industries and by certain banks, but the non targets who break into the elite firms talked about on wso seem to all have 3.9s. I'm just hoping that a 3.8+magna cum laude won't be looked down upon since it's from a state school. However, I do realize that work experience, networking and technical know how is key, possibly more important than GPA. Do you feel like if I were to learn financial modeling, that it would help me to stand out? Thanks
What year are you in currently? Are you saying to get a 3.9+, you HAVE to get a 4.0 every semester here on out? If so, it's probably best to get a high 3.8+ and spend your extra time focusing on activities (since you're saying that one
I think it is more important how you derived your 3.7/3.8/3.9 GPA. A student who has a 3.3 but received an A in Econometrics, Linear Algebra, Finance Theory, etc is far more impressive in my opinion than a student with a 3.9 and instead took intro elective classes every semester to inflate their GPA. Do the absolute best you can in courses that will actually challenge you. I rather have a 3.3 with courses that give me the tools I need to succeed than a 4.0 GPA and nothing to say for it.
Come interview time I think everyone on the other side of the table will appreciate you knowing a little math more so than a little about the history of under-water basket weaving.
When I was in college I got a 3.8. THe only reason I've ever been pissed is that I just wish I had Summa and not Magna.
Now that on the other side and Ive hired interns and looked at a lot of resumes I'll just say I couldn't care less. 3.6 and up is good for me. It's just a screen.
What I really care about is would I want to spend 70+ hours a week with you. I would much rather hire someone with a 3.6 who played sports in school, is easy to interact with and if we were to go out after work to blow off steam would be cool at the bars.
Interpersonal skills will forever trump your GPA. That number is just a check on the list I will only think about once...
"If you want to succeed in this life, you need to understand that duty comes before rights and that responsibility precedes opportunity."
Quick question. Are you able to tell if someone is a cool guy by their resume or is this part all down to the interview? If you can tell by their resume, what kind of stuff do you look for to see if the person is a cool guy?
Best Response
TheBigBambino:
When I was in college I got a 3.8. THe only reason I've ever been pissed is that I just wish I had Summa and not Magna.
Now that on the other side and Ive hired interns and looked at a lot of resumes I'll just say I couldn't care less. 3.6 and up is good for me. It's just a screen.
What I really care about is would I want to spend 70+ hours a week with you. I would much rather hire someone with a 3.6 who played sports in school, is easy to interact with and if we were to go out after work to blow off steam would be cool at the bars.
Interpersonal skills will forever trump your GPA. That number is just a check on the list I will only think about once...
Agree with this. Generally speaking, above a 3.7, I don't even consider differences. Your experience is far, far more important than a tenth of a point on your GPA. This is even more true at state schools, where grade inflation is far less prevalent than at Ivies. 3.6 is decent, but you would have to make it up with experience; below 3.5 and I start to shy away.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
i think the difference is .1 between each.
Don't be one of those guys, work hard, have fun and make it happen. Don't stress over sh*t like a girl.
socman:
What year are you in currently? Are you saying to get a 3.9+, you HAVE to get a 4.0 every semester here on out? If so, it's probably best to get a high 3.8+ and spend your extra time focusing on activities (since you're saying that one <4.0 semester will ruin your chances at 3.9, making this the strategy of getting a 3.9 to stand out quite risky).
However, if you're just starting school and don't need a 4.0 EVERY single semester to get a 3.9, I would recommend going for that 3.9.
I have 3 semesters left, and getting a 4.0 each semester would get me to a 3.9 and summa cum laude. I mean, theoretically the cut off could drop to a 3.89 or something, but most likely if I were to aim for a 3.80 (lower than my current GPA) then I would be stuck with magna cum laude. I would spend the extra time either networking, learning more and practicing financial modeling, working on my thesis and also joining a frat or something in addition to my other leadership positions. My internships aren't extremely impressive, but they do show an interest in finance, and I'm trying to bridge the gap of prestige with expertise and job preparedness.
Edit: I'm also just saying that it will be harder for me to get that 4.0 each semester, because even a 3.98 one semester would put me at a 3.89 cum. Otherwise, I could write one class off as an A-/B+/B every semester to keep a 3.8 each semester.
In that case, the road to a 3.90 will be tough. I'd say forget the 4.0's every semester since something out of your control can go wrong and you'd miss your mark. Use the extra time and energy to do as you said - taking interesting classes, writing your thesis, exploring finance internships.
I would try to get a 3.85, though, so that maybe down the line you still have the "ability" to round to a 3.9.
socman:
In that case, the road to a 3.90 will be tough. I'd say forget the 4.0's every semester since something out of your control can go wrong and you'd miss your mark. Use the extra time and energy to do as you said - taking interesting classes, writing your thesis, exploring finance internships.
I would try to get a 3.85, though, so that maybe down the line you still have the "ability" to round to a 3.9.
Down the line? Unless you're having to round down, round your GPA! I only care about the two sig-figs anyways.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
i think the minute differences in strong GPAs (3.6+) derive their importance from the candidates' schools. I'd focus more on the ECs of two target school kids (even if their respective GPAs had a gap like 3.6 vs. 3.8). However for non-target kids (more like lower tier state school kids), I'd prob take the 3.8 gpa kid any day over the 3.6 kid.
Surish:
i think the minute differences in strong GPAs (3.6+) derive their importance from the candidates' schools. I'd focus more on the ECs of two target school kids (even if their respective GPAs had a gap like 3.6 vs. 3.8). However for non-target kids (more like lower tier state school kids), I'd prob take the 3.8 gpa kid any day over the 3.6 kid.
Though I'm sure there are people who care this much, I don't think it's the general approach. Above 3.7, I have never experienced anyone paying much attention to GPA (other than having a 4.0, in which case it could even be a negative). You want to be well-rounded in this industry. Someone who will have success in buyside interviewing has a 3.7+ GPA, a 2100+ SAT score, strong ECs, a good story for why they want to be in finance and work experience in top groups. All of this Summa vs. Magna stuff is just silly, and I don't know anyone who pays attention to it when screening resumes.
EDIT: But yes, 3.6 is where questions start to be raised. The difference between 3.7 and 3.8, however, is basically zilch.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
NorthSider:
I only care about the two sig-figs anyways.
I'm going to assume you were a STEM undergrad. I've only heard chemists and physicists talk like this.
Majority of the posts are probably right about the GPA just being a number. But if you're already making this "choice" then I'm sure you're a cool guy who undertands the tradeoffs between hard work and having fun in college. You probably won't come off as a solely grade focused guy to an interviewer - no matter what decision you take.
Will say that some of this information here doesn't necessarily apply to OCR at semi-targets/targets. At my school the kids with 3.9 GPAs will pull anywhere from 7-8 offers, and even students with 3.7s will be lucky to get a couple interviews and land one offer. Since the OP goes to a semi-target where there is formal recuriting for some positions, perhaps the extra work is worth it. I don't know if the way my school gets recruited compares across all targets, however - but I've heard posters on WSO say similar things.
Dhanam:
Majority of the posts are probably right about the GPA just being a number. But if you're already making this "choice" then I'm sure you're a cool guy who undertands the tradeoffs between hard work and having fun in college. You probably won't come off as a solely grade focused guy to an interviewer - no matter what decision you take.
Will say that some of this information here doesn't necessarily apply to OCR at semi-targets/targets. At my school the kids with 3.9 GPAs will pull anywhere from 7-8 offers, and even students with 3.7s will be lucky to get a couple interviews and land one offer. Since the OP goes to a semi-target where there is formal recuriting for some positions, perhaps the extra work is worth it. I don't know if the way my school gets recruited compares across all targets, however - but I've heard posters on WSO say similar things.
To the extent this is true, I promise you that the GPA is not the reason why the 3.7s aren't getting interviews.
"For all the tribulations in our lives, for all the troubles that remain in the world, the decline of violence is an accomplishment we can savor, and an impetus to cherish the forces of civilization and enlightenment that made it possible."
I didn't mean to focus on the fact that 3.7s don't get any interviews, they do quite well for themselves too. I'm just trying to point out that in places with formal recruitment there is a significant incremental benefit to a 3.9 versus a 3.7. People often say once you're above a threshold that you'll get the interview, but in my personal experience there is some benefit to be added. There are people I've spoken to who demonstrate a strong passion for finance (have placed well at competitions like Ross stock pitch competition, Georgetown stock pitch conference, were Ben Graham junior fellows at value investing congress) and network well. They do very well for themselves, but they make a point of saying how frustrating it is that people they know who know absolutely nothing, but happen to have very high grades, seem to land interviews left and right without any finance knowledge and without having talked to anyone in the industry.
And to those that say you should spend time networking instead of trying to eke out a bit more on your GPA - who's to say those two things are mutually exclusive. There are brilliant guys out there who are doing well and also networking with tons of people.
Connecticut Yankee:
I automatically discount anybody I see with a 4.0, as it makes me think they are too singular in focus
Really? What about an athlete with a 4.0, other EC involvement and solid internships?
Voluptatem ipsum qui quo sapiente ipsam quisquam. Consequatur dicta iste natus. Vel est sed quae delectus. Consequatur dolore libero consequatur voluptatum. Perferendis numquam ab fugiat quos.
Laborum molestias quae rem beatae. Omnis et adipisci ipsum provident esse quo.
Culpa expedita et atque aliquam possimus dolorem. Quidem voluptatem illum doloremque necessitatibus. Aperiam excepturi aliquam est temporibus ducimus doloribus nihil. Velit quo provident deserunt nobis vel. Id voluptatem quia magnam et dolore. Odit earum dolorum tempore. Aliquid nemo exercitationem aut molestiae deserunt pariatur illo.
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
"so i herd u liek mudkipz" - sum kid"I'd watergun the **** outta that." - Kassad
Facere vero tempore quasi eveniet id nobis. Excepturi dolores expedita excepturi et illo. Veniam et aut inventore esse reprehenderit. Et rerum tempore quia quidem. Vel ullam voluptates expedita consequatur repudiandae qui. Ea sit eligendi eum id qui.
Consequatur harum nostrum cum modi. Animi iste excepturi voluptas aut sint. Odit distinctio quaerat eum est nulla. Quis at ut consectetur sequi. Non eum quas est doloremque omnis perspiciatis. Eos quis dicta veritatis nihil.
