Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not always true
Some students cheat their way thru or pick the easiest professor who is not tough on grading
Undoubtedly. But few will survive the degree program. The transcript gets them the minimum qualification to interview. If they skated through college, or were a bit "creative" in the resume, the interview will quickly separate that out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
Who is "we?" What industry are you? What disciplines do you require college transcripts? Is that the case for every role in your company or only certain roles?
Aerospace. We hire AE, ME, EE, Chem E, Physicists, as well as a finance, IT, and plain old Chemists and Biologists (to handle all the environmental aspects of acres and acres of a huge plant). Got a few English majors as well for all the documentation we produce and a smattering of others. The transcript lets us see if the potential employee has the background to learn the job. The learning curve for a new employee is a lot steeper if they don't have the fundamental coursework. And, yes HR verifies the degree and courses during the hiring process.
it depends on what youj're studying and who you know and WHERE you're going to school...
for instance... someone with ALL C's who's ALREADY IN Wharton(U Penn), McCombs(UT), Mendoza (Notre Dame)... for example... business schools will STILL get a valuable degree and education
this is because of the difficulty to GET IN, difficulty to PASS/EARN, and prestige of those degrees
it depends on what youj're studying and who you know and WHERE you're going to school...
for instance... someone with ALL C's who's ALREADY IN Wharton(U Penn), McCombs(UT), Mendoza (Notre Dame)... for example... business schools will STILL get a valuable degree and education
this is because of the difficulty to GET IN, difficulty to PASS/EARN, and prestige of those degrees
Exactly. The program matters more than the grades.
Exactly. The program matters more than the grades.
thank you.
I honestly transferred into a top private business school in Texas (you could probably take a guess lol)
But i had transferred FROM a lower ranked state school and you will not believe the amount of ignorance and lack there of of what it "meant" or the "value" to go to a top program.
All they saw was "it costs so and so much" but most of the time honestly, with good grades, it comes out to the same price lol
Yes, we require it. We hire mostly technical people and need to know if you a) have the technical background to even begin on the job, and b) have demonstrated the ability to learn difficult material.
It may not demonstrate that you have the knowledge to do the specific job, but it does demonstrate that you have the ability to learn.
All college material is difficult. Having completed a decent college program demonstrates your ability to learn. That's what the purpose of a bachelors degree is.
However, if you go through a poor quality program, you will not have demonstrated the ability to learn. For example, there's a big difference between a student you completed a liberal arts/science/engineering degree at JHU vs student who completed the same at Clemson University. The individual at JHU has gone through a rigorous program that requires the demonstration of learning through traditional academic methods, while the individual at Clemson University has gone through a program that simply requires the demonstration of being able to pass tests under the instruction of mediocre professors.
Not all programs provide a quality education. Many do.
All college material is difficult. Having completed a decent college program demonstrates your ability to learn. That's what the purpose of a bachelors degree is.
However, if you go through a poor quality program, you will not have demonstrated the ability to learn. For example, there's a big difference between a student you completed a liberal arts/science/engineering degree at JHU vs student who completed the same at Clemson University. The individual at JHU has gone through a rigorous program that requires the demonstration of learning through traditional academic methods, while the individual at Clemson University has gone through a program that simply requires the demonstration of being able to pass tests under the instruction of mediocre professors.
exactly.
The good/quality programs are hard to get into for a REASON.. they're harder(lol).
I laugh anytime some "superstar" at a low ranked state school says they have a "3.8" at a low ranked/tiered university that doesn't even use a +/- system...
That's what I've noticed down here too, all the really good schools use the "+/-" system which REALLY tests your ability... a 92.9 is NOT a "4.0" (or a REAL A lol)
The instances of someone getting through an entire bachelors program that way with a high GPA is relatively low. Sure it happens, but not enough to discount GPAs altogether IMO. Obviously you have internships, extracuuriculars and recommendations as well to corroborate the candidate's skill level if you are concerned.
I'm not saying there's a huge difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 or that GPAs are the end all be all, but for certain jobs there is a real difference in hiring a 2.4 vs a 3.5, and I would discount that due to the remote possibility of cheating.
1. There's a huge difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 GPA.
2. GPA is meaningless in determining the quality of education a student has attained. A better method is to look at their published work. If they appeared as contributing authors (it's unlikely that an undergraduate student will be anything more than a contributing author) on multiple pieces of peer-reviewed work, then they have done well in college. If they graduated, with a 4.0, but have not gotten a single piece of work in their field out, then they just wasted a whole lot of time and money (unless they were in it for the piece of paper rather than the learning).
1. There's a huge difference between a 3.5 and a 4.0 GPA.
2. GPA is meaningless in determining the quality of education a student has attained. A better method is to look at their published work. If they appeared as contributing authors (it's unlikely that an undergraduate student will be anything more than a contributing author) on multiple pieces of peer-reviewed work, then they have done well in college. If they graduated, with a 4.0, but have not gotten a single piece of work in their field out, then they just wasted a whole lot of time and money (unless they were in it for the piece of paper rather than the learning).
1. that's true. Thus a 4.0 at a uni that uses a "+/-" is SO VALUABLE, compared to one that doesn't.
2. that is fairly accurate. I would say getting the GPA to "get IN to" a good school will thus "open doors" for the student to do valuable research and internships that are worthwhile. So I would say that GPA is useful. Let's be honest, not EVERYone can get STRAIGHT into a top ranked school right out of high school... I didn't. But i busted my ass in CC and State school and got into a highly ranked private and the most important thing they looked at, honestly, were my grades/GPA. The essays and background check all that was important too, but they look at GPA first to allow you in or not.. Then it is up to the student/person to show motivation, ambition and work ethic to do the research and internships. GENERALLY, at those types of schools, that is the case
Not sure what colleges you attended or course, but I can recall very, very few tests in college that were "rote memorization of random facts." There were a whole lot more than a "few" projects and papers and most tests were discussion or problem solving. They didn't ask "what year did Columbus discover America?" but "describe the social, political, and economic factors that led toward exploration of new trade routes."
This part I absolutely agree with.
Biology for the most part (technically "marine science". The only thing that separated marine science from a straight biology major where a few electives and access to a marine bio field station) with a minor in Chemistry. I could have earned a minor in math, too, but never requested it because I did not intentionally go for the minor; I just took more math courses as electives because I wanted grad school and the programs I had my eyes on wanted to see math beyond Calc II and Sats.
Yes, I have been evaluated through projects, presentations, papers and so on; in particular in humanities courses. For the most part, though, being able to name the parts of system is more important than the ability to describe the system articulately through essay or paper in a biology program. And for math, it is all about computational speed. The prof might be impressed if you actually took the time to learn the theory behind the math, but you won't be tested on it during undergrad. For STEM, this all becomes reversed in grad school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
