Good Grades for Engineering Degree: Job Impact?

[pete5383]

Hey everyone. This might be a random question, but I was just wondering, how much emphasis do good grades play on getting a job with an Engineering degree (in my case, an Electrical Engineering degree)? I mean, I know there are many other factors, such as internships, research projects, going to grad school, etc...but what kind of effect will my undergrad grades play when I want to look for a job? Like, will someone with a 4.0 get an amazing job and someone with a 2.0 get a poor job, and what would even be considered a good GPA? Thank you!

Oooh, PS, I plan on going to grad school after my undergrad (I'm on the 5 year plan for my masters).

 

[chroot]

You're going to have to go through a number of technical interviews before being offered a job. Honestly, your performance in that interview is usually much more important than your GPA. If you know how to perform the job the company wants you to perform, you'll get an offer.

If your GPA is lower than, say, a 3.0, I would probably leave it off the resume unless asked.

- Warren

 

[pete5383]

Would a high GPA, like in the 3.8 or 3.9+ (more than I have now...but here's to hoping!), help more than a 3.0?
I mean, from what I'm hearing, it's not a huge factor, but employers still care about it, don't they? Or is it small enough in comparison to other things to not be overly concerned about it.
Also, thanks chroot for helping answering my questions, I think this is about the 4th or 5th time you've responded to me, and you always have good answers. Thank you!

 

[chroot]

If you have a stellar GPA, then you should definitely show it -- it can only help. If you have a below-average GPA, try to emphasise your skills, and leave the GPA off the resume.

- Warren

 

[leright]

I have been told by employers that too high of a GPA is seen as a bad thing, and the "sweet spot" is around a 3.4-3.5. If you have too high of a GPA it can indicate you may not have the "soft skills" needed in today's workplace.

 

[chroot]

I have been told by employers that too high of a GPA is seen as a bad thing, and the "sweet spot" is around a 3.4-3.5. If you have too high of a GPA it can indicate you may not have the "soft skills" needed in today's workplace.

Interesting concept, but I've never actually heard of anyone being rejected for having too high a GPA.

- Warren

 

[leright]

Interesting concept, but I've never actually heard of anyone being rejected for having too high a GPA.

- Warren

True, and I doubt anyone has been rejected for having too high of a GPA. But, my point is, employers do not see as much of a difference between a 3.5 student and a 4.0 student. However, the difference between a 3.0 student adn a 3.5 student is seen to be rather significant.

And, employers know that your GPA is not even really that good of an indicator of how much you're learning in school and your capability of performing the tasks required of the position.

In school, just try and get a 3.4 to 3.5 gpa and you'll be ok and be sure to learn as much as possible. Don't forget that you're there to learn and learning should be your primary goal. Grades come second. It isn't hard to get by with a good GPA yet not learn anything at all.

There are people that are good at plugging and chugging and regurgitating procedures to solve problems, but end up with little understanding and problem solving skills to solve problems outside their homework assignments. These people have high GPAs but do not really know much. GPA isn't the whole story. There are also people with lower GPAs that know more than the high GPA people.

However, unfortunately, GPA is the only objective criterion employers have to compare candidates, but, due to the way things work at most universities nowadays GPA is meaningless.

 

[Cyrus]

However, unfortunately, GPA is the only objective criterion employers have to compare candidates, but, due to the way things work at most universities nowadays GPA is meaningless.

I don't think so. A High GPA is what's going to get your foot in the door when you have no work experience striaght from college. It's not meaningless, at first.

And, employers know that your GPA is not even really that good of an indicator of how much you're learning in school and your capability of performing the tasks required of the position.

Depends where you work.

It isn't hard to get by with a good GPA yet not learn anything at all.

You can't get a 4.0 by not knowing anything.

Like, will someone with a 4.0 get an amazing job and someone with a 2.0 get a poor job, and what would even be considered a good GPA?

Well, I would take a stab and say the person with the 4.0 would get hired preferentially over the 2.0. If the market is good and they both get hired, the 4.0 is going to make more money than the 2.0 starting off.

Would a high GPA, like in the 3.8 or 3.9+ (more than I have now...but here's to hoping!), help more than a 3.0?

Hell yes. Where I work, they specifically ask for your in major GPA. They may take a chance with people who have low GPA's once in a while, but the majority of the time they won't call you back. They want smart people.

Oooh, PS, I plan on going to grad school after my undergrad (I'm on the 5 year plan for my masters).

That is the way to go. Try to stay above 3.5 to be competitive.

 

[leright]

You can't get a 4.0 by not knowing anything.

um, I didn't say 4.0...I said high GPA...however, there are 3.5 students that know more than the 4.0 students. There are people that just MEMORIZE everything and do quite well on tests, but do not put extensive thought into what it is they are "learning". This is the point I am trying to make...

I see these people all of the time at school, and I study with them.

So, GPA is a poor indicator of knowledge and ability, but really, it's the only thing employers really have to go by so it matters. So, as Cyrus mentioned, try and keep it at or above 3.5.

 

[pete5383]

What would you think is a good GPA to shoot for? Like, where do employers start saying "This is a little too low," or "Wow, this is impressive"?

 

[leright]

What would you think is a good GPA to shoot for? Like, where do employers start saying "This is a little too low," or "Wow, this is impressive"?

3.5 is a good goal, but your goal should depend on where you currently stand.

 

[jbusc]

I've heard plenty of people say that they wonder about people who have 4.0's in engineering, about what's wrong with them that causes them to seek out such grades.

Never heard about the same for GPA's of, say, 3.8 or 3.9, though. And admittedly, the GPA=4.0 issue does not really come up that often in engineering. :)

 

[Astronuc]

What would you think is a good GPA to shoot for? Like, where do employers start saying "This is a little too low," or "Wow, this is impressive"?

As high as possible, i.e. do your best. That's what a prospective employer expects.

Just because someone has a 4.0 GPA, it doesn't mean the person is qualified for a particular job.

 

[Manchot]

There are people that are good at plugging and chugging and regurgitating procedures to solve problems, but end up with little understanding and problem solving skills to solve problems outside their homework assignments.

I really don't see how this is possible. In pretty much every engineering and physics class that I've ever been in, the professors don't make tests that are like the homework problems.

 

[Cyrus]

Same here, the exams test your ability to adapt what you have learn to problems more difficult than the homework and require you to think on your toes. Pluging and chugging would land you an F- around here. Even the homework requires you to think. I really don't see how you can plug and chug.

 

[leright]

Same here, the exams test your ability to adapt what you have learn to problems more difficult than the homework and require you to think on your toes. Pluging and chugging would land you an F- around here. Even the homework requires you to think. I really don't see how you can plug and chug.

I suppose tests are sometimes harder than the homework problems, but I still know people that get ahold of past tests and just memorize how to work problems.

 

[Cyrus]

No, tests here are ALOT harder than the homework problems, always.

 

[leright]

No, tests here are ALOT harder than the homework problems, always.

Interesting. Here, if you can do all of the assigned homework, you are likely to do fairly well on the test...but you still usually need to work quickly to finish the tests.

Maybe your profs need to assign harder homework problems then?

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe your profs need to assign harder homework problems then?

You did not see my thread in GD about the vibrations homework, did you? The homework is esoteric.

The homework is hard as well. If you do the homework, you can expect a B. If you do the homework and want an A, you better know your stuff. You have to work fast and think fast. It all depends on the teacher. For example, my thermo course had an average of 60% on the exams. It was s**** hard, and only in 50 min. An 85% was considered an A (Though I got 100% on the exams so I did not need the curve). On the other hand, my Vibrations course is also s**** hard, but there is no curve.

A's are earned here, not handed out. B's and C's are the handout grades.

 

[leright]

You did not see my thread in GD about the vibrations homework, did you? The homework is esoteric.

The homework is hard as well. If you do the homework, you can expect a B. If you do the homework and want an A, you better know your stuff. You have to work fast and think fast. It all depends on the teacher. For example, my thermo course had an average of 60% on the exams. It was s**** hard, and only in 50 min. An 85% was considered an A (Though I got 100% on the exams so I did not need the curve). On the other hand, my Vibrations course is also s**** hard, but there is no curve.

A's are earned here, not handed out. B's and C's are the handout grades.

meh, I have hard homework too, and my tests are not a walk in the park (and often there is no curve), but if I work the problems, understand everything very thoroughly, and read the book very closely I don't usually have trouble. My point was, many people get ahold of past tests and memorize how to solve problems, since many profs do not change their tests much from year to year. They do quite well on tests, but do not know as much as other people that do not perform as well on tests.

Grades are not THAT meaningful.

 

[Cyrus]

I still don't understand what you mean by memorizing how to solve problems. Unless the problems are the same with the numbers changed, memorizing the solution to one problem won't help you if the test asks a different variation.

 

[leright]

I still don't understand what you mean by memorizing how to solve problems. Unless the problems are the same with the numbers changed, memorizing the solution to one problem won't help you if the test asks a different variation.

no, not memorize solutions...memorize the general procedure for solving the problems...

 

[chroot]

However, unfortunately, GPA is the only objective criterion employers have to compare candidates

You got to be kidding me. Most college grads go through at least two rounds of technical interviews before getting an offer. For most employers, your performance on the technical interview is ultimately what makes or breaks you. The GPA is hardly an issue as long as it's not "bad."

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

no, not memorize solutions...memorize the general procedure for solving the problems...

But that's what's called studying.

Do you study for exams the same way you write your lab reports, by deriving equations for hours?

 

[pete5383]

Chroot, if you don't mind a question directed more towards you, what kind of things -do- employers look for in technical interviews? I mean, my undergrad classes are going to be very similar to any other undergrads, and aside from GPA, and internships, what else helps get a job?

 

[0rthodontist]

No, tests here are ALOT harder than the homework problems, always.

Weird, my experience is the HW's are usually much harder than the test. The test typically is pretty routine and just review, it's the HW's that give you problems that take you hours to figure out.

 

[leright]

But that's what's called studying.

Do you study for exams the same way you write your lab reports, by deriving equations for hours?

no, but if I thoroughly understand the derivations then generally I need to do very little memorizing.

 

[chroot]

Chroot, if you don't mind a question directed more towards you, what kind of things -do- employers look for in technical interviews? I mean, my undergrad classes are going to be very similar to any other undergrads, and aside from GPA, and internships, what else helps get a job?

Internships, personal projects, and undergraduate research are really the things that make a college grad shine. If you seem jovial and do well on the technical interview, you'll probably be in good shape even without those things. Employers don't expect much from college grads beyond work ethic and an apparent willingness and ability to learn.

- Warren

 

[kdinser]

I usually find the homework problems more challenging, but that's generally because I'm just learning the material. I usually do the homework completely over at least 2 times, 3 times if I have the free time.

I do the homework over to cement the general procedure for solving the problems and to reinforce my ability to spot any algebra tricks that pop up in the problems.

I've found that most professors put enough problems that are of similar difficulty to the homework on the test so that anyone who is reasonably prepared can earn a C or B. At the same times, there are always 1 or 2 problems on the test that really test your understanding of the material and your ability to go beyond what you learned in class and the book. The ability to solve these kinds of problems are what usually separate the B student from the A student.

 

[Cyrus]

Weird, my experience is the HW's are usually much harder than the test. The test typically is pretty routine and just review, it's the HW's that give you problems that take you hours to figure out.

I say harder, becuase first, you only have 50 mins. In addition, the homework will contain a problem from a specific section in the book. The test, on the other hand, will combine all the material and ask you a question. So you have to think on your toes, as I said.

 

[Cyrus]

no, but if I thoroughly understand the derivations then generally I need to do very little memorizing.

I think this is good to a point. From your lab post, it seems like your wasting too much time on theory and not enough on applications of theory, which is what your tested.

What's there to memorize? You are typically given a formula sheet, but not always. No one, and I mean no one, is going to memorize all the heat transfer equations nor derive them. It would be a waste of time.

 

[Cyrus]

I usually find the homework problems more challenging, but that's generally because I'm just learning the material. I usually do the homework completely over at least 2 times, 3 times if I have the free time.

This is a very, very, very, very good habbit.

I do the homework over to cement the general procedure for solving the problems and to reinforce my ability to spot any algebra tricks that pop up in the problems.

YES!

I've found that most professors put enough problems that are of similar difficulty to the homework on the test so that anyone who is reasonably prepared can earn a C or B. At the same times, there are always 1 or 2 problems on the test that really test your understanding of the material and your ability to go beyond what you learned in class and the book. The ability to solve these kinds of problems are what usually separate the B student from the A student.

You sir, know how to study.

 

[Data]

Particularly in physics, most of our professors try to make test problems particularly challenging (there have been some exceptions, however - our "Modern Physics II" course, for example, is always taught by the same guy with very similar tests between years). Usually either previous tests are not available or they bear no similarity between years.

On my third year thermodynamics final, for example, the class mark distribution going into the final was C+'s and up; after the final, there were only four (out of 11) students above that level, and only one >B+.

Mathematics is a similar story, with a perhaps a slightly higher propensity for simple calculations problems. My ODE and mathematical methods classes were essentially completely based on remembering how to solve specific types of problems, without any real need for understanding of anything. Of course, in any of the other subjects this is not true: it is very rare for anyone to actually finish an analysis final around here (and it's not because there are just a lot of problems!).

The difference between physics and mathematics courses here, though (at least in my experience), is that usually the mathematics courses with tough exams will also have very difficult assignment problems. Often in physics they'll try to lull you into a false sense of security with slightly more straightforward assignments (and the courses with tough assignments will have easier exams!) .