when is a 34 better than a 39

School has a lot to do with it. Obviously an ivy means more than a state.

I would say if all things were equal, for instance both kids got an undergrad in finance from yale, kid A had a 3.6 and kid B had a 4.0; however, kid A had applicable EC's (president of business fraternity, internships, etc.) and kid B had nothing other than his GPA, kid A would probably be hired.

This is supposing you are competing against kids from lesser schools. You would be better of if you used your time preparing for the interview or trying to network vs telling yourself that your 3.4 is better than a kid from XYZ school. GPA involves 10 seconds of the interview. Move on to better yielding activities.

No no no Nefarious. All wrong.

It follows this formula, which is similar to the one used to rank banks that was recently posted:

Real, Un-"Ivied" Free GPA Flow = ((annual tuition)^2+0.5 * grade convexity * change in GPA from t - T)(1/Real GPA)(1/Average Annual Salary of New Graduates)

Hahahahahahaha @ "Free GPA Flow"

I think Anthony is right. Most recent grads get jobs from on-campus recruiting, campus career fairs or networking with alumni - so they're competing amongst people from the same school.

A 3.4 from an Ivy League school would beat a 3.9 from BU, if the majors are comparable. For I-Banking anyways.

The whole grade argument gets tiresome. Once you make it to a superday no one is paying attention to your grades. Get relevant internships, network, know your shit and you will be fine.

I really feel bad for people who consume their lives over grades. In 3-4 years you will remove the GPA from your resume and be done with it. This is not to say you should settle for a 3.0 or something, but do a cost-benefit analysis.

When I was at Syracuse I was taking 18 credit hours and working full time (50+ hours a week). I remember a stats class that had certain levels you could achieve. Once you passed the first test you had a guaranteed C, the second a B and the final an A. You know what, I passed the first test and moved on to higher value targets. My GPA took a little hit, but I had finite time and resources so I allocated them the best I could.

Focus on higher ROI activities. Once you have a 3.5 or better GPA you need to worry about other things.

3.4 in applied mathematics at MIT > 4.0 basically anywhere else.

Agree completely with Anthony, as usual. Once your GPA passes the initial stink test, then no one gives two shits about it. I'd hazard to say also that even in tiebreak scenarios, where the office members are going back and forth between two candidates that they liked, GPA does not play a factor. By that time no one is looking at your resume (either in the garbage or under a salad on someone's desk) and everyone has forgotten your GPA. They're all just thinking about how you presented yourself during the interview. 3.5 is topping off territory for banking. Only if you want a top law school or med school do you need to press any further on grades.

Agree dude. I had an 8am calc class that I missed on of the tests because I was falling asleep driving to school. Pulled over in a gas station and slept right through the test. Told the professor what happened and got a zero. That was 25% of my grade. I managed a 100 on the other test and luckily passed with a C+.

GPA only tells so much about a person.

Yeah, totally agree. I have pay stubs with 90+ hour weeks making 1/10th of what a banker makes. Always chuckle when people ask me about work ethic. Oh well, gotta play by the rules of the game.