Physics Major/Ivy/3.0 GPA - Would I be considered "smart"?
I'm just curious -- I know the typical stereotype of a Physics major is that they are "really smart", regardless of what school they go to. I know a friend majoring in Physics at a state school and people say he's a "genius". But of course for IBanking it's on a completely different playing field (right?)
I'm a Physics major at Columbia with a CUMULATIVE 3.2-3.0 and I have finance coursework (and did well) but ultimately, I still have a 3.0.
Now, would I be considered "smart"? Would my resume even get looked at? How much weight would my physics degree carry? I'm fine with either Investment Banking or becoming a quant. Both routes appeal to me.
to me your a b student. take it for what you want
Your profile says your a CS, Econ double major from UPenn with a 3.5. Your friend posting through your account?
haha that's just to hide my anonymity...i could also be a 3.0 Physics major at Columbia with lots of finance courses on my resume....just don't want someone knowing who i am based on the questions i ask.
but i really am a physics major...the computer science thing was a consideration but physics is the way im going
check your PM.
Im with Monty. I think you are smart, but if I saw a 3.9 econ major I would probably pay more attention. People see the GPA 1st. Frankly, just do some networking and internships and no one will care. GPA disappears after 3-5 years of work anyway.
GPA + Internships+School name = level of 1st job
If School name is high, your GPA can be a little lower If GPA is 4.0 and you have internships your schools name can be a little lower etc
1st job + work experience = 2nd job
You do 2 years at Merril Lynch and rock out no one will care what your major was or your GPA.
I wonder if you study under Brian Greene at Columbia...one of the founders of String Field Theory.
Anthony - "GPA disappears after 3-5 years of work anyway"
Maybe for work, but not for Business School.
I'm going through the job search but here's my two cents.
Your perceived "smartness" depends on the positions.
Quants typically come from hard sciences (physics, math, CS) or other technical disciplines--a 3.0 GPA is probably below average. You won't be able to say "Electrodynamics or Quantum Mechanics" killed my GPA when other quants have taken the same course work,
If it's a position that liberal arts or business majors compete for then you might have an edge since Physics is a lot harder than Finance.
If that's your BS degree, then I'd say you don't have much of a shot of getting a quant position. You'd have to at least get a MS with a 3.5 at a top school
There's some information here about quant jobs that isn't true. So, for the benefit of people who might read this thread looking for quant job advise, I'll post what I sent OP in a PM:
You could be smart and have a 3.0.
But having a 3.0 (or anything below 3.5) means you have an attitude problem towards study/work.....which is disastrous for any finance job. Dilligence is more important in this industry (except for the few ultra quant jobs out there).
How on earth do you go from a 3.0 to perceiving that someone has an attitude problem?
Reasons for a 3.0:
1)Transfer student (GPA does not transfer) 2)Family emergency 3)Worked FT or PT all throughout school 4)College athlete with a busy schedule 5)Very tough major or intense course load 6)Graduating in 3 years vs 4 to save money 7)Some people suck at standardized test
Thats just off the top of my head. GPA means shit, it is just one piece of the puzzle. If you have a 3.0 from Iowa State and have no work, internships or EC's on your resume, but were president of the frat then I think we can infer someone partied a lot. My point is GPA is just one element. I would hire the 3.0 kid with 4 solid internships, college athlete and creative ec's over the book worm who got a 4.0 in whatever.
Man, I feel sorry for all the kids on this forum that think life is fair and people who get 4.0's are smarter than someone with a 3.0 or that karma will reward them. Good grades are important and people should strive to learn as much as possible, but I have come across too many people who goof off all the time, but can memorize powerpoints and ace the test to believe that grades are the end all be all. GPA will get you an interview with no effort, but it will not get you the job.
I agree that GPA is only a component of the puzzle, but keep in mind that there are enough people with qualified GPA to be interviewed with and there will be enough people with qualified GPA for you to weed out the unqualified ones. I also agree that once your GPA reaches a certain level its difference matters less (e.g. 3.7 vs. 4.0)
That being said, GPA(or test scores in general) is still the single best factor for pre-selecation fo candidates.
To my previous point on why 3.0 shouldn't be considered:
I did a "hard core" science major in a top school myself and I know the amount of effort you need to spend to get something above a 3.5, it is not much.
At the end of the day, people can have different opinions, but the main reason you went to a (decent) college is to study. As unscientific as it may be, GPA still represents the result of your study. I assume you also understand how important "results" are in this industry. Hence having a minimum GPA requirement just means you care about the results of your main duty in college.
Same in banking, your main duty at banking is to work. If you made a crappy pitch book/memo/presentation/other piece work, no one cares about:
1)Transferred from another bank 2)Family emergency 3)Worked charity outside of work 4)Played sports outside of work 5)The analysis you have done is very complicated 6)Finish analyst program in 1 year so you can go to business school earlier 7)Some people who suck at basic financial knowledge
People only look at your results and if you don't understand how to generate results you don't belong here.
Glad to see somebody who is rational.
Not trying to make excuses, but an additional point to make is just how easy/hard the school is as a whole (grade inflation/deflation). I had classes where the professor would say that only 1 or 2 people would/could get an "A" because statically that is what was likely and the professor's performance reviews were based on whether or not their class grades fell into this predetermined bell curve. If they gave too many As then they would receive more marks in their reviews.
I thought this particular professor was crazy and was like, you can't change our grades, so if there are 10 smart people in this class then 10 of us will get A's and break the curve...his response was "It won't happen."
After the first few weeks I realized how he controlled this curve...
He would give tests with ridiculously ambiguous questions, that would have multiple choice answers like:
A) Yes B) No C) Maybe D) None of the above E) A & B F) A & D G) All of the above
You would be like...WTF? No problem though because he would always answer questions about the questions you had, if you came to his desk at the front of the class during the test. I kind you not, nearly the whole class would be standing in line 4 minutes into the test. You would get up there, ask your question and his response would be "just pick the one you think is the best answer and if it turns out to be wrong, then you can come to my office hours and dispute it and if you make a compelling argument then I will change it."
So...awesome, I am great at debating and can BS with the best of them. You get X number of questions wrong, show up to his office hours (again, wait in a line the size of the entire class) and point out what your issues. His response would be "You're wrong, next question." You would ask how he derived that particular answer and his response would be "Go look in the book." It was like you were on an episode of Punk'd or something.
He also had quizzes that would ask questions whose answer would only be found in the subscript of picture/image inserts in the text books...like "What was the label on the y-axis on page 238?"
He also had some gimmick he was developing that I think he wanted to sell.
So you would be sitting in class taking notes, hoping to learn enough to pass the next test and he would yell: "Thomas! Water Bottle!" and he would have to respond "...And what could be better than that?" "Ashley! Curtains!" and she would have to yell out whatever the hell the answer was suppose to be.
Essentially they were mnemonics for the top things/questions you needed to be able to ask and answer (mostly to yourself, but your staff as well) when in a board room as the CEO or Project Manager (he was a prior consultant and hospital administrator). The items were all things you would see in a board room potentially that should remind you to ask these question when evaluating a project.
He would also ask you to answer questions in class and after you finished explaining your answer to the case questions, etc. he would just ask "Projector?" and you were suppose to know what that referenced and then respond with the answer...but typically you would have no clue what the word meant so you would just make something up and then lose points anyway.
In short...that is how he 'fixed' the curve in our class.
Regards
GPA does matter, even if it doesn't prove how smart you are. I've seen a ton of quant PhD resumes with a near flawless track record, and for one reason or another, might not be able to get a job easily. If those guys have a tough time getting hired, then how much harder do you think it'll be for someone with a 3.0 to get hired?
case to case
Ut beatae quis sunt voluptate similique itaque. Nisi reiciendis minus quaerat.
Dolores repudiandae fuga laboriosam iusto quaerat. Atque optio nisi molestiae suscipit beatae autem vero.
Ut ducimus incidunt ab sunt enim. Repellat et qui deleniti at.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...