[Molten]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Comparing GPA's side by side just doesn't do the trick, and I specifically learned this when I was recruiting. The caliber of students coming out of Engineering schools like RPI, Clarkson, RIT, etc with 3.0 GPA's was much much higher than many coming from the state schools, so it was frustrating that HR placed a cutoff on us that we could not hire below a 3.0. I knew kids with 2.8's that were much smarter (and I would rather work with) than those with 3.5's just because they chose a "better" school that had harder GPA's.

I think anyone can vouch for this problem. Though, it goes further then just comparing between schools. As long as the academic environment is different from the work environment, the ability of the student in college only approximates how well they will do in the work place. It is a very rough approximation at best. It is very hard to understand how that individual student got that particular GPA. For me, I've always gotten my grades through a natural talent and strategy when preparing for a test. I currently have a 3.4 GPA. I know a friend who does not have that natural talent, but he has a similar GPA because he is always about networking. He knows how to find the right person for any situation. If faced with a problem he can't figure out, he always knows who to go to for an explanation. In all honesty, which of us "did better"? We have the same GPA but I'd be willing to bet that he'd do better then me at most jobs. Simply because he has more of the skills needed in the work place while I have more of the skills needed in the academic environment. If it were me, I'd hire him before myself. Not a doubt in my mind.

Jason