GPA cut off for PE

[quote=International Pymp]Take the BB job... after that so long as you don't have a "bad" GPA I think you'll be fine....

While it's hard to say and there are plenty of people who make it with 3.2 s (particularly if they were at a great school), in my mind, "bad" is >3.499 .... after that level the only marginal increase in your resume is when you get to "over-acheiver" level...

My dude do you not know how to use the "greater than" and "less than" signs?

"Bad" would be 3.9

CompBanker:

GPA matters for PE recruiting, but it matters far less than it does out of undergrad. The impact of going from a 3.7 to a 3.6 will barely be noticeable. You're fine.

What if you were a standout analyst for 2 years...but graduated with a 3.3 or 3.4? I was under the impression that after working for a few years your GPA wasn't very important as long as you performed well in your position.

How does a 3.4 GPA play out for PE recruiting? I'm not talking top shops like KKR/BX, but more so solid upper MM places?

BigBucks:

I am pretty sure WallStreetKid was being sarcastic because otherwise that comment would be absolutely asinine.

I'm glad somebody else picked up the sarcasm. I was a little thrown off that it took like 3 comments lol

International Pymp:

I actually don't, but I see those errors now... it was a long weekend.

I guess I still feel like a dick. Sorry about that.

Unfortunately yes. The bigger problem is less the funds themselves (though they do care) but rather headhunters. If they see over and over again tons of resumes with GS 3.9, GS 3.8, GS 3.7, MS 3.7, BX 3.9, etc. etc. it becomes very easy to use things like GPA and school to choose which 50-100 resumes they send not only to KKR/TPG, but also to upper MMs like WCAS, LGP, GTCR etc. Your school also matters; being an engineering D1 athlete from HYP makes a 2.9 much more understandable than being an english major from a top public. That said,

1. If you can blow headhunters away with your confidence, knowledge, and a good reason for your grades that could overcome your initial hurdle

2. How did you get the offer in the first place with

Unfortunately that's gonna hurt, unless you've got a really good reason for it (like you studied math at CalTech while playing on their basketball team). Even then, it's certainly not a plus.

Thanks for the responses. Would you guys recommend networking with people directly at funds instead of getting filtered by HHs? Would HHs even meet you if they see a low GPA for there to be a chance to demonstrate ability/personality in person?

On the other hand, if your grades are 3.7+ from non-HW Ivy but you are from a group a tier below, how does this affect things? Are HHs less receptive?

^You'll probably get a shot at 1 or 2 megafunds.

Hmm surprised that even after a year or two out of college GPA can have that much influence. I wouldve thought group + experience would trump at this point.

how were you able to land a spot with a top tier group with a sub 3.0 gpa? Just curious as to the methods you used

GPA definitely plays a role for pre MBA pe recruiting. There are firms that care less and firms that care more, but as people have said in this thread, MFs can have their pick of the litter. The reality is if you're in a "top" IBD group, you probably interviewed well when you were in college and MAYBE you have had a slightly more rigorous experience than your peers, but that doesn't mean you walk on water and that being in GS TMT alone will trump all other aspects of your candidacy.

Leave it off and your resume shall be ditched

So even with a 3.3 I should keep it on there? Is this going to hurt my chances? 3.3 seems pretty low for megafunds and top MM PE shops.

I always thought once you've worked for a couple years you're supposed to take your GPA off, so PE shops wouldn't automatically assume you have

Not sure how leaving your gpa on would make them assume you have

From reading these forums and various blogs, it seems like companies assume you have PE.

egg mcmuffin,

You're right, after you've been out of college for enough years it is normal to leave your GPA off your resume. Unfortunately, 2 years is not enough, especially for PE recruiting. I'd say a minimum of 5 years in the work is necessary before you can leave it off and they won't assume you have less than a 3.0. You're going to be hurting your chances pretty significantly if you leave it off now.

Clear

I would focus on making sure that you're a rockstar during your analyst stint first. If you're in a good group and are a 'top bucket' analyst, the GPA becomes less relevant when the time comes for PE recruiting.

I would definitely leave your resume on it for now. Hiring managers like quantitative data. If you don't have the transactional work to demonstrate on your resume, your GPA can be a great signifier of your work ethic. 3.3 isn't going to blow anyone over, but it isn't the worst I've come across either. What school are you coming out of?

I'm coming from a semi-target. How much would a 3.3 hinder me from megafunds and top MM PE?

Every resume I've seen come through has GPA on it. I am not on the finance side and my undergrad GPA was 3.1 - I left it off and was asked about it in my interviews. It wasn't a huge deal. My in-major GPA was ~3.6 in engineering and I just didn't care about anything else.

My experience is limited to the one firm I've worked at, but the offices are small. References/Networking and your personality and interview smarts will count far more than your GPA. The more structured the recruiting, the narrower the filters get.

This is a classic case of worrying about something you have no control over. It's a waste of mental energy until you have to make a decision - which will occur when you begin interviewing for PE in a couple years. Take a chill pill.

finished my MBA last year and started networking / recruiting without my GPA on my resume. I think I was asked by 4 out of the first 5 people I met so I put it back there (pre MBA background is 3 years BB, 2 years PE). I also got asked pretty often about my SAT scores. Anyway, the bottom line is, it follows you for a long time so make sure it doesn't slip in your last year.

It'll definitely be relevant for buyside recruiting out of banking. Whether it will preclude you from places that are better than staying in banking is something you won't know until you've given it a shot. If you want to work in PE, go through recruiting and see what you end up with. Then decide whether it's worth leaving banking. People differ regarding their goals and expectations for buyside recruiting; I know plenty of people who'd leave banking for just about any PE firm and others who're expecting something like $3bn+ aum, and even some who aren't interested in PE at all and are holding out for hedge funds or other opportunities.

I'd imagine that once you're 4-5 years out of college it won't matter much because you'd be recruiting for post-MBA positions at that point, although I could see it still being relevant if you don't pursue an MBA. Obviously it's a less important factor than your performance on the job, though, and it will become less and less important the more years out of college you are.

bump

Some do, some don't. For the ones that do, it's critical to get the interview but not the offer and it's usually predetermined by GPA cutoffs. I've seen usually 3.5+ though I have seen listings from funds with a 3.8+ required GPA.

From what I've observed from a friend in PE, I don't think undergrad GPA is considered that much. Undergrad school will continue to remain extremely important for a quite a few years after your IB Analyst stint, however.

Your analyst experience will be the most critical assessment factor in your candidature for PE. Non-BBs and GPAs matter lesser for PE recruiting as opposed to IBD recruiting at the undergrad level. That said, the only way it can be a hindrance is that people already in PE who went to targets will be biased to pick someone from those schools to interview. However, if you approach the recruiting process smartly, this shouldn't be a big problem to deal with.