ACT/SAT is more important than GPA
This might be a hot take, but a candidate's ACT/SAT is a far more reliable indicator of how intelligent and successful they will be than their GPA.GPAs are almost impossible to compare because different schools have different curves and standards. Some of the Ivy leagues are notorious for their grade inflation, while large state schools can often be much more harsh because of the sheer number of students in a section. It also doesn't help at all when comparing candidates with different majors. A math major getting a 3.3 is way more impressive than a 3.9 finance or econ in my opinion.Standardized tests level the playing field significantly because everyone is forced to compete at the same level. If I saw a nontarget with a 36, I'd take that any day over the target with a 33, given they both have relevant experience.
I don't think that's a hot take at all - ACT/SAT is a universal standard, GPA varies significantly. Bankers don't really care about GPA as long as it's above the minimum of 3.7 or so.
This might be accurate with regards to intelligence but in IB recruiting, GPA is 1000% more important. Every time. I agree a 3.3 math major is more impressive than a 3.9 GPA... but IB is well known to only care about GPA, so someone aiming for IB who is bombing their grades with a hard major is not being very smart about their path.
Personally I did poorly on the SAT (1300) because I was immature at age 16, which is pretty common. I grew up after that and then went on to get a 3.9 in a difficult major.
There's also huge socioeconomic differences here, parents paying for 2 years of tutoring certainly helps some kids get higher ACT/SAT scores than they would otherwise.The GPA part at least you have to put in consistent work. Also fwiw on the scientific end, GPA is more indicative of success in college and beyond than SAT scores
I agree it sucks that recruiting is accelerated, but that is what it is. Totally agree banks could have a wider talent pool, but as a lowly associate running recruiting at a BB I don't really control that. I have to work within the given constraints. My MDs are not happy interviewing a 3.3 even if their major is quantum physics.
Freshman year is a bye and you really should have IB in your sights by the start of soph year to be competitive. No one is taking junior or senior level math classes as a freshman, you have time to figure out your major if you decide on IB early in your sophomore year.
SAT and ACT scores are going away because they are so inequitable and incredibly skewed towards rich kids who have the resources for years of $$$$ prep. Why reward that even further?
Editing to add source on correlation. Per UPenn, "High school GPA and class rank each have weakly positive correlations with household income, falling between 0.06 and 0.07, whereas SAT scores, especially on the math section, have correlations with household income roughly 3 times as large" (Source)
Neither are important now. What matters are your demographics and pronouns.
Asian male @ high semi-target w/ 1570, 3.9 GPA in STEM, can’t get an interview. Such bullshit.
at the end of the day they’re both bullshit. you can get a bullshit “adhd accommodation” and get 1.5x time for every test you take in college and the ACT/SAT. Also, saying ivy leagues have inflated grades is, for lack of a better word, retarded. Most kids at ivies would get a 4.0 without breaking a sweat at their own state schools. If the average Harvard kid is getting a 3.7 at Harvard, that’s actually deflated considering he’d get a 4.0 at any non-peer institution
Lmao that is absolutely not true. I knew a few kids who got into an Ivy league because of athletic scholarships while being absolute duds academically and having shit ACT scores in my public high school. But somehow they were able to get A's in the best universities in the country? Get out of here.
People are missing the main point here. SAT/ACT is a single test whereas GPA is a track record across a multi-year period. The latter is a much better indicator of consistent work ethic which is far more relevant for finance than mastering one exam or measures of raw intelligence.
Regarding the argument of a 3.3 math major, I disagree with you because if someone got a 3.3 that means that person did a major that was too hard for them. A skillset desired in finance is being able to appropriately manage your workload. Nobody wants the analyst who volunteers for everything and then burns out or delivers substandard work. Someone who is reliable in the deliverables worked on even if it isn’t the maximum amount an analyst has volunteered for is of tremendous value.
Outside of maybe hft, the skills above matter much more than raw intellect.
This shit is so stupid - end of the day you are a logo aligner, and a slave to your deal team. You need someone who can follow instructions and has a strong attention to detail, not someone who can solve for 'X' better than the next person. This job is not hard, only time consuming and mind numbing. I currently work in PE (went to a target, had a 1590/1600 SAT) and can say none of that has made me a good analyst.