• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

GPA evaluation

Joined
1/13/11
Messages
1,362
Points
93
Hi. I have one question regarding the process of evaluating cumulative GPA. In many finance faculties the subjects like history, native language, marketing and such anti-mathematical ones are mandatory. I don't like, moreover, hate these subjects but they are still included in GPA. So if I get low marks in these subjects, it significantly decreases my GPA. My question is, when evaluating the application for job, or MFE, MBA, PhD finance, does the admission committee take the specific subjects into consideration? Or they just look the overall GPA?

Thanks
 
For example if I have A+s at calculus, statistics, stochastic calculus, finance-based subjects like derivatives, investments, corporate finance, etc. and D-s(for example) at history, marketing, strategic management, etc.. The GPA could be within the range of 3-3.5. So do the committee members dig into the subjects covered?
 
:( Sad. I'll have to improve the GPA on my MBA then. My current cumulative GPA is gonna be somewhere 3.6/4.3 after this last BBA semester.
 
A well-rounded applicant is always looked upon more favorably than a nerdy type who do well in math and less well in soft courses. And it speaks well for the level of maturity of that person if he takes his study seriously across the board.
Right Andy.

But I believe the GPA is a bad indicator of even seriousness not to say anything about the studding power. Everybody has their interests and are focused on those subjects. You can find people concentrating on math and physics on parallel but hardly people liking math and geography at the same time. All in all, what would be Einstein's GPA? I think it'd be "negative".
 
In 1895, at the age of 17, Albert Einstein applied for early admission into the Swiss Federal Polytechnical School (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule or ETH). He passed the math and science sections of the entrance exam, but failed the rest (history, languages, geography, etc.)! Einstein had to go to a trade school before he retook the exam and was finally admitted to ETH a year later.

When asked why this happened that he passed math, physics and social sciences excellently and failed on easy subjects he answered: "These subjects are so boring that I didn't feel like answering them correctly".

That's why GPA is a bad indicator.
 
That's why GPA is a bad indicator.

GPA is great indicator of commitment and overall level for recent graduates.

It doesn't matter a lot for those with experience who can demonstrate in their CV something other than list of relevant courses, for example, to mention a new risk management system in major IB that was built from scratch and allowed to save XXX $ then I very doubt that any person would ever be concerned about your GPA. It also doesn't matter for a very bright kids who can score 990 in GRE Math or participated in IMO / IPhO but for millions of other undergrads with almost identical skills sometimes GPA is the only criteria to separate one from another.
 
I completely agree with the example you provided KaiRu. As for differentiating millions of applicants, they can hit on research experience, strength of recommendations, and if they are interested in GPA (which is to be so), it'd be better to evaluate the relevant subjects scores and not the ones that push GPA down to hell. For example, if we have 2 applicants with scores:

Applicant 1: A+,A+,A+, A, A ... in math-based (relevant) subjects and D, C, C, C-,B- ... in "anti-math" subjects.
Applicant 2: D, D-, C+, D+ C+.. in math based subjects and A++++++++++++s in non-math ones.

Provided that the second GPA is much higher. Which one would you choose? The first one obviously right?!

I know that GPA is not the only indicator but I don't agree with the following statement and I'll say why

GPA is great indicator of commitment and overall level for recent graduates.

First, I don't know what you mean in recent graduates. I think you express the idea that recent graduates are more or less similar in all other evaluation criteria so GPA is one more tool for differentiating. Second of all, I have experience with students and what I see is people with high motivation, great minds, one cannot state mathematical problem they can't solve, they are studding much in summer, winter holidays, their only entertaining facility is math, but if you look at their GPAs you'll probably have a heart attack. Since all the non-technical subjects are destroying their GPAs. So I prefer people with one concrete direction of interest rather than studding everything well. When I begin to study a lesson from non-math subject (from the school age) I need at least 1-2 hours sitting with book and looking at the first page and getting psychologically prepared to start. And the thing is that these subjects are not going to be used ever at work.

Regards
 
In my opinion, not liking the subjects is not an excuse for bad grades. What if some day you get a BORING job at work ? what do you do then ?
 
In my opinion, not liking the subjects is not an excuse for bad grades.

Im not justifying bad grades Roni. Im saying that overall GPA is not correct for the position or degree you are being evaluated for. They should place more emphasize on details and not the overall GPA.

What if some day you get a BORING job at work ? what do you do then ?

This happens after you have been admitted for job. GPA evaluation comes before.
 
Tsotne do not get upset because your GPA sucks. Stop seeking assurance through other members in the forum. Take your studies more seriously.

:D How can I find and "use" assurance from the forum members? Not upset. Just stating that people (not me) are left out of discussion sometimes because of low GPA caused by non-useful subjects.
 
D-s(for example) at history

I'm not sure what course you are taking, but certainly in my current undergrad having a good understanding of history is worth its weight in gold. A sizable section of my Banking module is on financial panics and crises and subsequent regulation. Anyone can read the text books and spit back out a stock answer on why the Dutch Tulip mania happened or the Mississippi bubble, but having a good understanding of history and the socio-political-economic dimensions at play, is what pushes your mark up into the top grades.

Some may disagree but I think a strong command of history and the skills the subject teaches is of great use in the banking sector.

Maybe you would find the subjects more interesting if you could see how they might apply to your current career goals?
 
You may not like classes like history or music appreciation or philosophy, but you still need to work to get good grades in them. Hell, it isn't like these classes are really that hard anyway. They are gen. ed. courses that you can probably just sit there, listen, not even take good notes, and still pull an A. I have had no trouble with these classes so far. If I was evaluating applicants and saw that they had low grades in these subjects, they would be some of the first to go.
 
Back
Top