Are physicists looked down upon if

  • Thread starter Thread starter penzoate
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicists
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
143 replies · 32K views
penzoate
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
, I was just curious, do other physics majors with a 3.5 or higher consider physics majors with a GPA between a 2.5 and 3.0 let's intelligent in areas in physics. Do fellow physics majors consider the physics knowledge the physics major with a 2.5 GPA learn outside the classroom?

Or are they just labeled as a dunce by fellow classmates?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone with a 2.5 GPA, is in serious trouble.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
Anyone with a 2.5 GPA, is in serious trouble.

I agree.

I think what other people think of you is the last thing you should thinking about when your GPA is lower than 3.5.
 
JasonRox said:
I agree.

I think what other people think of you is the last thing you should thinking about when your GPA is lower than 3.5.


I've only taken one my first year physics courl and received a C+ in that class. There are a lot of smart physics majors who's GPA is below a 3.5 and have manage to go onto graudate school to study what they love
 
penzoate said:
Do fellow physics majors consider the physics knowledge the physics major with a 2.5 GPA learn outside the classroom?

I don't really have the authority to answer your main question, but I am wondering if maybe you are taking on too much work? When you say you have knowledge from "outside the classroom" does that mean that you are working on extra stuff like reading extra physics books on different topics etc? I think that it would be wise to focus on only what is getting graded upon until your marks come up.
 
what is the average GPA of most of the physicists on this forum. Like I said, I am a freshman and only taken my first introductory physics courses. I have a C+ average now. I want to know grades of other physicists, including the grade of physicists , who improved there academic performance throughout there 4 years. I really want to earn an A in most of my physics courses.
 
mathwonk said:
i envy people with a 3.0 or 2.5 gpa, as i had a 1.2 gpa.

just before i got kicked out of school. gpa schmeepa. what you can do matters, school grades are child's play.

Companies LOVEEEE to hire fresh graduates with 1.2-2.5 GPAs, yeah, grades don't matter, right...:rolleyes:

If you don't have serious advice to give the kid, don't waste his time.

Penzoate, you are going to have to study a lot harder if you want an A. Everyone has different methods of studying that works best for them. I suggest you find what is holding you back and overcome that issue.
 
mathwonk said:
just learn the concepts, and you will be fine. screw the grades.

well i am a young and naive kid, but it seems to me getting the grades is better than learning the concepts (while in school) because you can always go back and learn the concepts, but you only have one chance to get a good grade.
 
mathwonk said:
a suggestion: ask yourself if there is anyone on this forum you would hire. without seeing their resume. see what i mean about resumes?

Um, no. I don't see what you mean, because that's not how companies hire people. They look at your resume, and when they see a fresh graduate with a 2.5 GPA staring them at the face, they are going to throw it into the trash pile and move on to the people who were serious in college.
 
Last edited:
Not familiar with US scoring terms etc. but if GPA is that one which determines if you get into uni or not then I don't think it matters as long as you get in. In Australia no one really cares about your ENTER (unless maybe it's 99.95) as long as you get in the course and do well in it.

Also low ENTER (And GPA if it's the same thing) really has nothing to do with intelligence. I hate to sound narcissistic but I was literally the smartest guy at my school. I could grasp concepts and learn quicker then everyone, and not only did I understand the concepts but I could link them together and I know know the intricacies and details and where they came from etc. etc. But did I get 99.95? No, I didn't because I didn't do any homework, the amount of work I did during high school was literally none, I would have failed chem had I not topped the class in the midyear exam. That's how little homework I did, so ENTER/GPA is really no better measure of intelligence then IQ, and anyone who is stupid enough to think you're less intelligent because you got a low GPA/ENTER shouldn't be doing physics.
 
You're GPA is your overall grade in college. It shows how much time and effort you put into your classes and how seriously you took them. Someone who has a low gpa is either lazy, or stupid.

This is not High School Grades, don't compare the two.
 
I see, if the GPA thing is your overall grade then you're in trouble if it's low, higher score = more chance to get a good job.

As to whether people think your stupid because you got a 2.5 GPA, I doubt it, that would be jumping to conclusions.
 
OP: If you consider physicists outside of the classroom - you should also consider that a GPA matters little (or has little meaning) outside of the US.
 
cyrusabdollahi said:
You're GPA is your overall grade in college. It shows how much time and effort you put into your classes and how seriously you took them. Someone who has a low gpa is either lazy, or stupid.

Or just got unlucky when the professors decided what questions to put on the final! :smile: 50% of your grade based on one test? Come on!
 
mathwonk said:
you guys are so young and naive. you think qualifications are on paper.


I understand what you're saying. But the problem is that the professors are naive about grades. Not us students.

I'm forced to do fairly well or else professors won't listen to me at all.
 
I would like to mention that I think that a low GPA really does not say much about your intelligence. It really does not mean you are lazy either, it really means that you have gotten into a bad cycle of not doing your work and therefore feeling like you can't do it and eventually thinking that you are not smart enough. But you are smart enough--I did very poorly in school for two years. I actually though for a while that the problem was my lack of intelligence--that's what happens, but let me tell you this: I now do very well, and I know that I am one of the smartest people at my school (and my high school is #66 in the nation).
 
Are you referring to a GPA-in-the-major or an overall GPA (including non-major possibly-less-interesting courses)?

The GPA is but one indicator of ability... but it's not necessarily reliable. Folks can get good grades by getting good marks on homework and exams... without necessarily understanding the material. (I'm not even going into issues of cheating, grade inflation, etc...) Regardless of a student's GPA, I still ask the student questions to probe the depth and breadth of their knowledge.

Certainly, it's better to have a better GPA than a poorer one... but some mastery of the material [even if it comes a semester or so too late] should be the main goal.

If your GPA doesn't reflect your talent,
  • find out why
    [what is your stumbling block? study habits? math? lack of interest or motivation?]
    and try to fix it
    [get help. work with folks who know their stuff. study harder. read more books.]
  • find other ways that do
    [are you better in the lab than with your nose in a book?]
 
you should try and get a 3.0 because otherwise it becomes very difficult to get through to grad school and all that.

but once your through the door it doesn't matter, what will matter is your understanding of the material. I'd like to see the poor sap who tries o tell his advisor "but, I came in with a 3.8"

also a year or two after your out of college nobody will care what your grades were, just how smart you are.

EDIT: also people on this forum seem to believe that its a linear model of going to college, going to grad school, and then gettig a good job because they had good grades. That is a very boring life, if your feeling a bit buned out take a year off and do all the things you've been wanting to do. Be a ski bum, see the world, join the peace core. My father decided that he wanted to be a ski bum after college and lived in new hampshire for a year, then he spent the nex decade doing strange and interesting things around the country, including livin in a trailer. Now he's the head of sales for a major cosmetics packaging company, and handles millions of dollars worth of sales. Same thing happened with my step-mother, she didn't get serious about her career till she turned 30 or so, now she's the director of purcahsing for a very major cosmetics company.

life is not a linear progression, and they're are some things that you can only do when your young, if you want to do them go out and do them. You have your whole life to become a phd.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, a 3.0 (/4.0) GPA (or lower) would be a red flag for me if I were reading an applicant's resume. But then again, I work in a fairly elite R&D lab, and for many years we've only interviewed and hired the very best applicants. For a more general job, maybe the 3.0 would be less of a red flag.

I graduated 2nd in my high school class, and basically didn't need to study very much to achieve that. But when I went to college, I got my butt kicked for the first year, because my study habits were not good enough. But I buckled down, improved my studying (including many 50-60 hour study weeks outside of class), started doing just about every problem in every chapter, and brought my grades up to basically straight-A's. I finished undergrad with a 3.7 GPA overall and above 3.9 in my technical classes, and went on to graduate school on a scholarship.

So your grades do matter a lot in some places (like if you ever apply to where I work or many other Silicon Valley companies), and if you work hard (and figure out how to work as well as you can with good study habits), you should be able to raise your GPA up into the mid-3's at least, IMO. Eliminate the other distractions during school time, and develop good study habits and techniques. Be positive. Relax and focus.
 
Last edited:
cyrusabdollahi said:
Um, no. I don't see what you mean, because that's not how companies hire people. They look at your resume, and when they see a fresh graduate with a 2.5 GPA staring them at the face, they are going to throw it into the trash pile and move on to the people who were serious in college.

I agree with you. However, I'd like to point out the importance of personal relationships with others in the workplace. A fresh graduate personally recommended by an employee has a great chance of landing a job. GPA is important, but it's not the be-all, end-all.
 
i agree. to be honest i'll admit that a high gpa is better than a low one. but i am very aware too that if you are willing to get serious and have ability, anything can be overcome. although i did indeed have a 1.2 gpa freshman year in college, it led to being kicked out of school.

in grad school, the second time, i had a 4.0, and it led to receiving the university presidents fellowship. but the 1.2 gpa did not end my world. i got another chance.

oh and in grad school there was another kid with a low gpa, who was so smart, that he was awarded the same fellowship i had, just for essentially asking one question in class. he was the kind of person who immediately impresses you just when they open their mouth once.

when i graduated i got three job offers in a tight market, but when he graduated he received 10 job offers, including ones at every ivy league school, before he even wrote up his dissertation. so basically his resume was just word of mouth. that is the one that really matters.

it is only if nobody knows you that they have to look at the resume.
 
ill try to give an example. we were sitting around at lunch, me, my friend, and a world class topologist, when the subject of the hopf map came up, i think, or something about a 3 manifold. the famous topologist said he had trouble visualizing the topic under discussion, when my friend said he had a nice way to picture it, and just drew the guy a picture of a link or something.

that was all it took. that kids resume was written for the next 3-4 years right there. the topologist asked me afterwards "who is that guy? he is really good."

that kind of thing means more than all the A's in college courses you can have.
 
Last edited:
the nsf used to have a paper describing how to measure the quality of a research scientist, that i read once. it included things like money raised, number of people supervised, and papers and so on, but the number one measure was "the impression the person makes on you as a scientist when you meet him[her]."

your gpa may get you an interview, but then you have to interview well. and if you don't have an interview, you can make one over lunch, or during a question and answer session after a talk.

It happened to me once too. A famous geometer was speaking at length in an invited talk, I was in the audience, being studiously ignored by all the higher level people trying to rub elbows with him, when at the very end the speaker posed a question he did not know the answer to.

As it happened I had answered a similar question in my thesis so i answered it for him. He almost fell off the podium coming over to ask me more. later at harvard he asked me for more details. when i went out of my way to make time to give them to him, he more than repaid me the next day by giving me a tutorial from his vastly greater knowledge.
 
As others have said, better grades will mean more opportunities for you. I was lucky to get into my Masters program. I had a 2.5 GPA in my undergrad with about the same with classes in my major(physics) too actually. I'm very grateful for the opportunity they gave me. I average about 3.0 now. Part of my problem was laziness and the other part was workload.

Currently, I take 2 courses per semester at 4 credits a piece and I'll be finished in 2 years (plus some research credits). At my previous school I would have 12 credits but 3 credits a piece so that would be 4 courses, each with plenty of homework to give out. So, if workload is one of your problems, I suggest substituting some easier courses that don't require much of you if you can. Better study habits can help too obviously.

Good luck
 
I will agree with mathwonk that it is far better to be a genius than to have a high GPA. :smile:

I will also agree that no one cares about your grades after you have some real experience. However, if you are a mere mortal without much work experience, you had better keep your GPA as high as possible... :smile:
 

Similar threads

Why is philosophy looked down upon?
  • Bishop556
  • · Replies 25 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
25
If AP Environmental Science is looked down upon, should I take it?
  • AznBoi
  • · Replies 5 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Courses Retaking a Course: Is it Looked Down Upon?
  • UrbanXrisis
  • · Replies 2 ·
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2