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.
Where did I imply that the poster I was referring to is from a well-off background? I think the dilemma I was describing applies to all socioeconomic classes.
See the bolded part below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
There was a thread a while ago where a high school senior had to choose between a full scholarship to a state university vs paying full tuition out of pocket at MIT.
To qualify for having to pay for full tuition at MIT, you need to have a family income that is quite high. To put it in context, with an income of $225,000, financial aid covers 42% of tuition. You're probably looking at a an income of $500k or more where financial aid is phased out completely.
I would say that a 3.6 vs a 2.3 is a significant difference that is likely not determined by one hard professor, one hard class, a personality conflict, nor a poorly timed illness or family emergency. If you do beleive that what was taught in college is relevant to the job, then go for the 3.6 rather than the 2.3. The problem is when you compare a 3.58, a 3.60, and a 3.62. If you don't feel that what was taught in college is relevant to the job, then don't even look at GPA. If given the choice, I would personally go for the 3.6, but I can see the employer types arguing that the 2.3 either had to struggle more for his/her degree and has a better work ethic, and/or that the 2.3 has better soft skills. I'm not agreeing with the employer types, just explaining their logic.
I can't think of any employer that would argue 2.3 is better than 3.6 by any measure. Not sure what it would buy them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001
Maybe all degrees can requires some work experience as part of the program. That would benefit both the student and employers. Remember that most graduates will not be doing research, even though that is what you do.
.
Research is what I do, but I've done a lot of other things first. Also, research at this level is a bit different than what people picture. It's not guys in white coats. We employee physicists, engineers (of all types), machinists, electricians, welders, plumbers, pipefitters, iron workers and a dozen more skillsets.
Pretty much my thoughts on what makes a good candidate apply regardless of where. Things like a solid knowledge of the fundamentals of the particular field; creativity; curiosity; inventiveness; good communication skills; a problem-solving mindset. When confronted with an unknown problem does the engineer look for a creative solution or try the same things that have been tried before? It's what I've mentioned before here on CD -- the difference between cookbook engineering and creative engineering.
Some universities are better at nurturing that than others. Early in this thread I used the example of Tenn Tech and Georgia Tech. Which one of those is more likely to nourish the traits I'm speaking of?
Wow. Some folks certainly get upset over this when it was meant to be a useful discussion. Here's what I'm dealing with right now, today. What would you do?
We're hiring for an entry level engineer. Just spent today reading almost 80 resumes from brand new graduates. You know what a new graduate resume looks like? They're the same. Same degree. Same list of courses. Same senior projects. Same types of internships. Same work experience in fast food or retail that we all had at that age. The only differences are the college and the GPAs. And even that 80 resumes was from about 25 different universities. That's what I meant in my reply to MITSGUY earlier -- I get five resumes from the same college for the same degree, most of them are in the same courses with the same professors other than a few differences.
The only things that distinguish these resumes from each other is some very few actually did something beyond the standard program. From those 80, how do you pick the half dozen or so to interview?
Much as I hate using it, GPA became the only discriminator for most of them.
What would you do? How do you pick who gets the interviews?
While I'm not involved in the hiring process, I tend to be the one that directly works with and supervises junior engineers and interns at both my old job and the job I started last spring. I am more involved in the decisions on which engineers to keep after provisional periods or internships than I would like to be.
Some schools have a better track record of producing better engineer than others and the employers pay their high fees for attending their recruitment fairs. So I think it would be reasonable to place higher weight on resumes from their schools. I'd also give higher weight to student research, leadership and relevant internship/co-op activities. GPA is useful for comparing students that went to the same school, but laws of diminishing returns applies when you branch out too much since grade inflation is an issue. Also some schools have a bigger issues with students utilizing test banks than other schools, and in my experience tends to separate GPA from actual engineering aptitude. Professor recommendations go a long ways.
When it comes to graduating with honors, some schools limit it to a small percentage and some are top 30% or more, so knowing that context in addition to GPA is helpful. I think a 3.0 is a reasonable cutoff for engineering. If you aren't getting any candidates for interview, then that is when to loosen that screening requirement. Earlier in my career I did work for a mega corporation that really didn't care about GPA or ABET accreditation and there is definitely some value for considering that in the hiring process.
I think you have mentioned in the past that you tend to rank by school and then GPA and I don't see a reason to deviate too much from that. Outliers from lesser known programs with impressive work experience and/or really high GPA should get included in the interview process, but I suspect you already know that and act accordingly.
To qualify for having to pay for full tuition at MIT, you need to have a family income that is quite high. To put it in context, with an income of $225,000, financial aid covers 42% of tuition. You're probably looking at a an income of $500k or more where financial aid is phased out completely.
But "financial aid" includes loans. If all you get are loans, then you are still paying out of pocket. When I was applying to colleges, I did not get any non-loan need-based financial aid at any school, but my parents' income was nor $500,000 not even $225,000. Of course, my guidance counselors brainwashed many students (not me) into believing that loans are free money and somehow better than grants or scholarships.
I can't think of any employer that would argue 2.3 is better than 3.6 by any measure. Not sure what it would buy them.
I'm not agreeing with them, but some would argue that the 2.3 has better soft skills, and/or that the 2.3 has a better work ethic since he/she had to struggle more.
Do you think that maybe you could make an argument that a 3.9 is better than a 4.0? The person with the 4.0 was likely always the teacher's pet, likely took easy classes, likely was good at gaming the system, and likely dropped any class where he/she was in danger of getting a B. Whereas the 3.9 student may have dealt with some adversity, and maybe took more challenging classes, and did not walk away from a challenge
Quote:
Research is what I do, but I've done a lot of other things first. Also, research at this level is a bit different than what people picture. It's not guys in white coats. We employee physicists, engineers (of all types), machinists, electricians, welders, plumbers, pipefitters, iron workers and a dozen more skillsets.
To me, "research" is overpaid and underworked college professors abusing underpaid and overworked grad students.
Quote:
Pretty much my thoughts on what makes a good candidate apply regardless of where. Things like a solid knowledge of the fundamentals of the particular field; creativity; curiosity; inventiveness; good communication skills; a problem-solving mindset. When confronted with an unknown problem does the engineer look for a creative solution or try the same things that have been tried before? It's what I've mentioned before here on CD -- the difference between cookbook engineering and creative engineering.
Some universities are better at nurturing that than others. Early in this thread I used the example of Tenn Tech and Georgia Tech. Which one of those is more likely to nourish the traits I'm speaking of?
I never attended either school, so I don't know. But since you seem to place a lot of stock in college hierarchy, I'm sure that you would claim that Georgia Tech is better in that way. Even though that is likely not the case. In reality, a small, teaching based college would be better at "nurturing" or "nourishing" than a large, research-based university. I find your choice of words interesting, given that the elite colleges would be the ones least focused on "nourishing" or "nurturing".
I watched a kid cry in class because he got a B senior year in high school.
I almost started laughing but thought of all of the idiotic busywork he had to do to get straight A's in everything up to that point.
What do A's in everything mean?
That someone will do whatever they are told even if it is stupid?
Valid point, but probably not always.
I think there are two sides of that coin. I've seen the apathetic "geniuses" who seem to come in to class, appear to not pay much attention, and then walk away with As as if it were nothing.
I've also seen the sticklers like you describe, aka the rule followers. They're doing everything they can to follow the rules, fall in line like a good soldier, get extra credit, and flip out when they get anything under the expected A.
I believe that some people are just naturally really smart (through a combo of nature/nurture) and things just click for them without as much effort. I believe that some other people are pretty smart, too, but work their tails off for the success.
But "financial aid" includes loans. If all you get are loans, then you are still paying out of pocket. When I was applying to colleges, I did not get any non-loan need-based financial aid at any school, but my parents' income was nor $500,000 not even $225,000. Of course, my guidance counselors brainwashed many students (not me) into believing that loans are free money and somehow better than grants or scholarships.
IIRC, you are either a late gen x or early millennial. Things have changed a lot since then, namely that tuition is probably 2x what you paid back in the day, if not more.
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.
