should i round a 377400 to a 3840 or just leave it
.....
Trending Content
| +3,742 | Bank of America - Juniors Strike to start Monday May 6th | 410 | 10m | |
| +804 | BOFA ALREADY TRYING TO COVER UP THEIR TRACKS | 79 | 9h | |
| +530 | This is a dark day for Wall Street. | 43 | 2s | |
| +345 | BofA Associate Death - WSJ, FT, CNBC, Bloomberg | 36 | 13m | |
| +182 | Analyst at Bofa FIG-Thoughts | 28 | 8h | |
| +180 | How to strike without being fired. | 21 | 2h | |
| +169 | Big Layoff at Barclays - 5/1/24 | 88 | 18h | |
| +145 | Hey WSJ, BBG, CNBC, FT, it's been more than 72 hours that this BofA IBD Associate was reported dead | 17 | 1h | |
| +136 | BofA List | 34 | 28m | |
| +124 | Shame on you, BofA. But also, the industry needs to change. | 17 | 7h |
Career Resources
So long as all GPAs on your resume are listed to the same significant figure (as they should be, especially for banking), always abide by the following unless explicitly told to do otherwise:
NR's Theorem of Optimal GPA Rounding: -A monkey should decide the decimal format of his/her GPAs on a resume such that the sum of all GPAs listed makes the following formula greater than or equal to zero: (format used) - (alternative format)
Citation.
This theorem is retarded...so when ever you can round up, do so...?
No, it's for when you have multiple GPAs listed (major, cumulative, prior school, etc.). It doesn't say always round up, it says round up if the cumulative difference between the two formats is minimized, otherwise don't. Also, you should be careful about throwing stones like "retarded" around given that you asked the initial glass-house of a question, Einstein.
Yup.
seriously, what should it be?
You don't think this has been asked 50 times before?
Put 3.77 and it's 3.77. Put 3.8 and it could be anywhere from 3.75 to 3.8. You pick.
I would just round it to 3.8, I rounded mine from 3.677 to 3.7 and nobody every questioned it. People just assume that your gpa ill be between 3.65 to 3.69 if you round to 3.7. I never had any issues. just my 2 cents
Does it matter? NO
The only times that it actually matters is when you're below 3.60.
Oh. My. God.
Carry it out to 4 decimal places or your resume gets tossed
Actually lol'd
should be 4/4
Hi, I have a related question. I had omething like a 3.5 gpa for my junior-senior year, and a 2.8 the fresh-soph, with a graduate gpa of 3.0. Is it acceptable to put my last two years GPA on resume and put something like "GPA 2008-2009": 3.5. I realize this may be stupid question but there was a huge contrast between my first two years and last two years of undergrad.
http://longorshortcapital.com/adjusted-gpa-on-a-pro-forma-basis.htm
can you guys just say yes or no? I don't understand why you have to give people such a hard time
because its the same answer as blondes or brunettes?
whatever you fucking prefer sherlock.
Don't be offended by them giving you a hard time. Just think about what you are bringing up here.
You are asking such a relatively minor question about a .03 GPA difference. I am not saying that I don't believe in my last post. 3.8 is that much better than a 3.77, so don't lie about what you actually got. But I do realize that most of these guys are working hard throughout the day, if not into the late night hours, so the last thing they want to do is respond to someone asking about their GPA.
Do you really think they would enjoy dealing with recruiting and students trying to use them for networking after having worked for a very long time?
I'm sure many of them respect the importance of networking and the recruiting process, but it doesn't change the fact that it is probably an unpleasant addition to their already strenuous work requirements.
I'm just telling it as it is. Have some respect and and understanding of people who you are asking for advice.
-- And your name is "money money money money" so what do you expect.... that gives the impression that you don't exactly have your priorities straight for why you are choosing to go into the industry. You are far from the only one with that issue, but I believe that is one of the biggest negatives to finance as a whole; people who go into the industry just for the money have unrealistic expectations and are not going into finance for the right reasons. A genuine interest, more times than not, will get you farther and make your more successful and deserving.
I gave you formula kiddo, if you can't understand how that's better than a yes/no answer, then you don't belong in banking.
Holy fuck, I seriously hope you're joking...
There is nothing holy about it, I am not joking. I am not saying that the Street agrees with me, but you are in fact lying if you add onto your GPA. I wouldn't do it. I feel like a 3.77 is good enough where I wouldn't have to round. 3.8 is greater than a 3.77 simply because it is higher, obviously. But a 3.77 is very solid, so why is it necessary to round it?
At a certain point, for people with high GPAs, your exact GPA doesn't matter anymore. What matters is what else you actually bring to the table. AKA what is actually important for the job. GPA is a filter, but everything else is the reality for what quality of a worker you are.
So instead of debating whether a nice GPA (3.77) should be turned into a bit of a nicer GPA (3.8) by adding GPA points that you didn't get, how about "you"=the OP=any person wondering this spend time on improving the other qualities, thereby actually improving what really matters for eventually being an effective and successful worker.
3.8 is a lie. You got a 3.77 not a 3.8
So I will give you a straight answer
NO! = No you shouldn't round it up
oh wait missed the #engineer tag... never mind.
What about rounding a major GPA up by .1 (like 3.6 to 3.7), do they ever actually check it (calculating a major GPA instead of just looking at cumulative on transcript)? I have 2 majors, one is 0.1 above my cumulative and 1 is 0.1 below and I thought you were only supposed to list majors if they were both at least equal to your cumulative.
Like I already mentioned, I can't say that the majority of people working in finance would agree with me, but you are taking an even bigger jump than the OP. I really don't think you are justified in adding an additional .1.
And in terms of the major GPA, I think you are only supposed to put it down if it is much higher than the cumulative. Meaning the actual major GPA you got, not what you rounded it up a full .1 to, is much better than your cumulative.
The fact that this discussion has gone on for this long is truly pathetic.
I can't believe I just read it....
probably the most autistic conversation ive read on WSO
Nostrum voluptatem cum labore aut. Consequatur autem expedita deleniti commodi. Quia qui nihil dolor nihil asperiores veritatis commodi. Tempora labore et officia cupiditate.
Architecto fugit porro numquam ipsam. Aliquid explicabo sint impedit saepe eveniet.
Voluptatibus magnam adipisci illo velit. Ut debitis est inventore facere quod laboriosam ducimus. Consequatur eum eos modi et ipsum beatae laudantium. Possimus repellat quo delectus. Dolorum ut exercitationem vel.
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...
Distinctio tenetur quidem voluptate veniam sequi qui. Corrupti est itaque alias vero soluta facilis. Porro reprehenderit voluptas ut.