GPA vs. Experience

[EddieN]

My grades are good, but not spectacular. Right now I have about a 3.4 as a biotechnology major.

 

Most humanities and writing classes I had to take I got A's or B+'s in.

 

Every computer science or math course I've taken so far I got an A in. I have to take about one per semester.

 

What brings me down are the general biology/chemistry courses that are worth a lot of credits. I mostly have straight B's in them with a few B+'s. These courses include genral bio, general chem, organic chem, microbiology, genetics, etc.

 

I try hard in these classes, but I have trouble pulling past B'sbecause I'm generally a bad test taker when it comes to bio/chem exams. I understand the material very well (and actually help other classmates very well), but during tests I miss little details that screw up the entire problem. I usually ace math and comp sci exams because I'm more of a logical thinker and am good at problem solving. Bio/chem exams aren't like that though. If you forget or miss one little detail then that can mess you up, and I'm bad at remembering the tiny details.

 

Now, maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm a bit worried that after I graduate I'll be passed over by the people that have high GPA's, or worse, someone who has a high GPA that is in a totally unrelated field. Are grad schools and employers that obsessed with GPA?

 

What I have to back me up is I am very good in practical situations and I can solve problems very well. I'm currently working in 2 labs. One is paid but is grunt lab assistant work, though it will look good on the resume as the lab is renowned and I am also getting used to what goes on in it. The other is unpaid, but I do something more important in it with programming. I already have an internship set up for the winter break, and a big internship set up for next summer in California. So, by this time next year, I will have built up a lot of experience even before my senior undergrad year.

 

What are your experiences with GPA vs. experience and how employers/grad schools look at them? My goal is to get into a top grad school for my field in California (the one I'm interning at next summer), but I'm afraid it will be so competitive that you'll need like a 3.9 to even be considered.

[nobody's girl]

From my own personal experience, it doesn't matter what your GPA is as long as you have a degree. I have 20 years experience in my field but I don't have a degree in the field (not a lot of degree programs in the field when I started). I have the hardest time getting a job. And in many cases when I had a job and my employers have hired additional people with degrees they get paid more than I do but don't have a clue how to do the job. Seriously, they'll say "But that's not the way I was taught to do it in school." Yeah, well in the real world, this is how its done. But because they have a degree in the field, they're treated 10 times better than the people who have worked their whole lives.

[BUENG1]

My grades are good, but not spectacular. Right now I have about a 3.4 as a biotechnology major.

 

Most humanities and writing classes I had to take I got A's or B+'s in.

 

Every computer science or math course I've taken so far I got an A in. I have to take about one per semester.

 

What brings me down are the general biology/chemistry courses that are worth a lot of credits. I mostly have straight B's in them with a few B+'s. These courses include genral bio, general chem, organic chem, microbiology, genetics, etc.

 

I try hard in these classes, but I have trouble pulling past B'sbecause I'm generally a bad test taker when it comes to bio/chem exams. I understand the material very well (and actually help other classmates very well), but during tests I miss little details that screw up the entire problem. I usually ace math and comp sci exams because I'm more of a logical thinker and am good at problem solving. Bio/chem exams aren't like that though. If you forget or miss one little detail then that can mess you up, and I'm bad at remembering the tiny details.

 

Now, maybe I'm paranoid, but I'm a bit worried that after I graduate I'll be passed over by the people that have high GPA's, or worse, someone who has a high GPA that is in a totally unrelated field. Are grad schools and employers that obsessed with GPA?

 

What I have to back me up is I am very good in practical situations and I can solve problems very well. I'm currently working in 2 labs. One is paid but is grunt lab assistant work, though it will look good on the resume as the lab is renowned and I am also getting used to what goes on in it. The other is unpaid, but I do something more important in it with programming. I already have an internship set up for the winter break, and a big internship set up for next summer in California. So, by this time next year, I will have built up a lot of experience even before my senior undergrad year.

 

What are your experiences with GPA vs. experience and how employers/grad schools look at them? My goal is to get into a top grad school for my field in California (the one I'm interning at next summer), but I'm afraid it will be so competitive that you'll need like a 3.9 to even be considered.

 

I've never been asked in any job interview I've ever had what my gpa was. This includes internships as well. Most of the applications don't ask for them either.

[quankanne]

I am very good in practical situations and I can solve problems very well

 

practically speaking, this is what an employer looks for: Is this new hire someone whose hand I'm gonna have to hold after the initial training period, or can he/she take the ball and run with it? How is this person going to be of benefit to MY company/organization?

 

a high GPA is nice, but doesn't mean diddly squat. We had a coach who taught our high school chemistry and physics courses who had "a beautiful transcript," according to one of the school board members. He was a crap-ass teacher though, and I made a point to bxtch about him to the school board mom (her daughter was a year behind me) every chance I could. So, their idea that he knew his stuff was WAY different from he could practically apply (i.e. teach) the subject with his students.

[New Again]

Experience.

 

Do internships.

 

No one gives a rip what your GPA was, unless you're trying to get into grad school, then you have to meet their minimum requirement.

[WTRanger]

Ditto times 1,000 on experience. I've known people who were 4.0 GPA's but dumber than a bag of hammers when it comes to real world problems. Conversely, I've know people who suck at standardized testing yet can make a nuclear bomb out of underwear and used AA batteries. And there are plenty of people who are in between as well as the folks that are either smart and savvy or dumb and dumber.

 

Grad schools tend to look at your GPA, unless you are applying as an alumni. Then they may tend to be a wee be more forgiving. Employers generally don't care about GPA's but if you weren't able to get an internship you can show that at least you have the drive to get good grades and how that will transfer over to your work ethic. The high GPA can help and it certainly can't hurt, but it usually isn't a major factor.

 

However, in this current economic climate you will be applying for jobs against people who have had 10 plus years experience who are willing to work for the same pay scale you are.

[EddieN]

I am definitely going to grad school after I graduate, but I might also work in a lab at the school and receive a salary and scholarships. I know that at the lab I work at now, after I graduate, I can almost definitely get a job there starting with at least $45k and full tuition paid for grad school. Pretty nice deal. This is at my state university, which is a very high quality public school. While I'll consider it, my first choice is a school out in California like I mentioned. They say that their minimum GPA to get in is a 3.0, but I'm sure many people who apply there are well above it.

 

I guess I'm a little paranoid because when I was applying to colleges from high school, I got rejected from most of them. My interviews went well, my SAT's were very high, I had over 30 AP credits, had a lot of good recommendations, and I did sports and some other activities. Problem was my grades weren't spectacular, not bad, but not like straight A's or anything. That's what got me by the balls, the non-perfect grades. I'm afraid the same will happen with the grad school I want to go to.

 

And while I try to get the best grades I can get, I personally find doing hands-on stuff a lot more satisfying and interesting. So I'm with the rest of you that say grades should mean jack ****.

[WTRanger]

I had a 2.9 undergrad GPA and I was accepted into grad school, which they required a 3.0. I was also dead average on my GRE scores. Though, the Analytical and Writing portion was higher than average my quantitative scores sank me into dead average. However, I'm an alumni of the University and I'm getting my master's in the program that I received my bachelor's in. So I'm sure the alumni card was played to my favor.

 

I'm also bringing in 5 years real world experience to the table so that helps in getting an assistantship program. I can TA the exact same courses I took as an undergrad, knowing what I know now, I feel I can really let these students know what would be expected of them once they graduate.

 

If you are nervous about applying for a new graduate school. Apply early when they aren't as likely to be ultra picky about who they accept. The longer you wait, the more the program fills, the pickier they get.

[Gunny376]

I work in a lab, and generally do pretty good work when I'm not drinking~

[Gunny376]

Its not your GPA, its not the college you went to? Its not your major!

 

Its who you know, more than what you know! Its what family you were born into, or married into!

[quankanne]

and, in some cases, who you're willing to let schtupp you on the casting couch:p

[RA1]

I can give you some good news. Your college performance only matters in gettimg the first job or maybe two. After that, it's all about how you performed in work. What interviewers look for is signs of progress in work - increasing responsibilities and promotions to more senior posts. Also, it doesn't matter if the job you are going for is very different to your last -- the general assumption is that if youhave a track record of success in one job, you will probably make a success of the next. So do your best to get good grades but don't worry if you don't. In two or three years after graduation, it won't matter a damn.

[RA1]

Duplicate post deleted..

[stace79]

The only time I've known GPA to matter is if applying to graduate/professional schools or if you are trying to teach at the college level.

[amerikajin]

In most cases, experience is more important than GPA. Usually, your GPA is only important if you're considering a graduate or professional degree.

[EddieN]

Lol, everyone here is saying that GPA is important if you're pursuing grad school...which I am.

 

Let me ask this - for grad school, does the actual value of the GPA matter much if it's past a certain point? Like, if someone has a 3.5 in a hard major, that says a lot. Once you get that high, the differences in the GPA are based on such tiny things. For example, my roommate got an A in one semester of basic chemistry freshmen year while I got a B+. We did all the homework and such, but every test he got 1-2 more questions right than I did, out of 25-30 questions. That difference got him the A. It's a pretty tiny difference to base anything on, don't you think?

[Chubbi]

Eddie I have the same GPA you do. You don't think it's good?

 

I'm going for grad school too and now you're making me scared.

 

For consideration, you should look at what your school thinks about it. For example, law schools always have a set criteria in what they think you should have: LSAT score, GPA, personal essay, volunteer and experience, recommendation, and then whatever else.

 

Whatever school you're thinking about, you should study for the test like the GRE or the MCAT, do good on it and then add that look to your GPA etc etc.

 

There's always stories about the person who may have like a 2.8 but they bring a certain something extra to the classroom- which is why your personal essay would count.

[amerikajin]

Lol, everyone here is saying that GPA is important if you're pursuing grad school...which I am.

 

Let me ask this - for grad school, does the actual value of the GPA matter much if it's past a certain point? Like, if someone has a 3.5 in a hard major, that says a lot. Once you get that high, the differences in the GPA are based on such tiny things. For example, my roommate got an A in one semester of basic chemistry freshmen year while I got a B+. We did all the homework and such, but every test he got 1-2 more questions right than I did, out of 25-30 questions. That difference got him the A. It's a pretty tiny difference to base anything on, don't you think?

 

It generally depends on how competitive the program is. Most graduate programs that I have seen have a GPA cut-off of about 3.0. Technically, if you get a 3.0 you're eligible, but a 3.1 or 3.2 might not be enough if you're in a program where the average undergrad GPA is 3.5 or better. However, if you have been out of school for a while, a good work record might be able to compensate for a weak GPA if you otherwise meet the minimum requirements. Test scores are also a factor. You can get by with a weaker GPA if you have exceptional GRE/GMAT/LSAT scores.

[amerikajin]

There's always stories about the person who may have like a 2.8 but they bring a certain something extra to the classroom- which is why your personal essay would count.

 

Not to discourage anyone, but a 2.8 is extremely low by grad school standards. If you started off poorly but finished strongly, you could probably overcome doubts about your academic record. If you rarely posted a GPA above 3.0 in your academic career, though, the admissions committee would have serious doubts, no matter what you've done outside of the classroom. Even if you that prospective student did well on the standardized tests, they'd assume that a 2.8 student is too lazy for grad school.

 

That said, a low GPA by itself isn't necessarily a problem. You just have to be able to explain it and somehow provide proof that you are likely to succeed in grad school. If you're close, you might want to take a course or two, ace them, get good recs from your professors, and that would probably help a lot.

[BoredPerson]

GPA is needed for things like math and programming.

 

Other than that a degree is nearly useless but at the same time necessary. The right work experience trumps all. Often you will not be taken seriously without a degree.

[EddieN]

GPA is needed for things like math and programming.

 

Other than that a degree is nearly useless but at the same time necessary. The right work experience trumps all. Often you will not be taken seriously without a degree.

 

I would think it's the opposite - GPA is needed for liberal arts majors, while math, science, and programming is more about getting through it and showing that your mind goes beyond the classroom.

 

I mentioned that I have A's in math and programming classes, so I don't need to worry, but everyone I've heard has said that GPA is not as vital in engineering or mathematical majors.

[Star Gazer]

Not to discourage anyone, but a 2.8 is extremely low by grad school standards. If you started off poorly but finished strongly, you could probably overcome doubts about your academic record. If you rarely posted a GPA above 3.0 in your academic career, though, the admissions committee would have serious doubts, no matter what you've done outside of the classroom. Even if you that prospective student did well on the standardized tests, they'd assume that a 2.8 student is too lazy for grad school.

 

Agreed.

 

I would think it's the opposite - GPA is needed for liberal arts majors, while math, science, and programming is more about getting through it and showing that your mind goes beyond the classroom.

 

I actually totally disagree. Seeing grad school aside, GPA is far more relevant in the objective fields, like math and science, where there IS a right/wrong answer. In liberal arts classes, your grades are far much more subjective and subject to the interpretation and experience of the professor. I was (essentially) a public speaking major. The same speech could be judged a million different ways, depending on the professor. Same with English majors (essays, short stories, and the like) and Film majors.... there is no "right" or "wrong," just a matter of what someone thinks is good.

[EddieN]

But like I said before, GPA in math/science is determined by such tiny differences, like getting one more problem right on an exam. And while it might seem like everything is right or wrong and nothing more, it's a bit more complex than that. Many of the people who get A's do so by taking days to memorize information for one exam. After that exam, they totally forget it. I remember during some calc tests I would do decent but not excellent on the bulk of the test, but I'd always nail the extra credits because they would always connect several past concepts used to the current ones. No one would know what to do because they forgot how to do the stuff they learned for the last course. While I may not learn a topic as thoroughly as others, what I learn sticks for good.

 

But aside from that, fields like engineering are not about how well you take a test. An engineer who is good with exams but can't apply anything or be creative is essentially worthless, even though he might have an astounding GPA. If anything, I would think it's a lot more important to have a high GPA in an arts and sciences major, because you're mostly dealing with theory and books and not doing much that's hands-on. With engineering or biotechology like I'm doing, theory taught in the classroom is certainly a factor, but what you do hands-on is also a big factor that can't be averaged into your GPA because it can't be described with a number or grade.

 

I might not have the most illustrious grade record, but when I'm given the chance to apply what I know to actual problems I excel. Unfortunately, how I do in labs isn't factored into GPA.

[amerikajin]

I might not have the most illustrious grade record, but when I'm given the chance to apply what I know to actual problems I excel. Unfortunately, how I do in labs isn't factored into GPA.

 

You don't have a bad GPA. In fact you have a GPA that will probably get you considered for most graduate schools. However, if you're applying to the elite graduate school programs, you're going to be up against the elite students, and their GPAs are probably going to higher than that. That's not to discourage you; that's just reality. The best you can do at this point is to focus on bolstering your application in as many areas as you can. Test scores, in particular, might be a good way to jump to the front of the line. Good recommendations from supervisors, especially if it's a reputable employer in your field, also show graduate schools that you have potential to succeed and make a name for yourself in your specialty, which is what they're looking for. At this point, I would be realistic, but not discouraged. But you might want to apply for a few top-tier schools, and also a few second-tier (plan B) in case you aren't accepted.

 

As for employment, don't get discouraged if you end up not getting into the elite schools. Employers will still hire you if they can be convinced that you can be an efficient worker. What will be important in any case is to build a professional network. Go to conferences. Meet people. Send a resume whether they're hiring or not. Drop in and arrange a brief informal 'interview' even if they're not advertising job vacancies. The point is to get these companies to remember you and to have a favorable impression of you before they start hiring.