sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > overheard at Wilmott.com > > “undergrad grades are irrelevant, graduate grades > are bogus” > > i agree! so what comparison do we use for 2 jabronis?
for context, i think the thread was for phds trying to get their first job. sorry for the confusion. cfagoal2’s mother is a whore.
don’t drink the kool-aid. does anyone honestly think that if Goldman or DE Shaw, etc were hiring or someone was trying to get into a highly competitive PhD program, and there were two candidates, equal in every possible way but one had a 4.0 and the other had a 3.1, *anyone* would choose the 3.1 over the 4.0? It’s a sad reality that grades are perceived as an indicator of potential and are used to bucket, and filter out, candidates.
no koolaid drunk. we could also consider a 4.0 from no name university and a 3.6 from MIT. truth: 4.0 > 3.6 who gets hired?
also, any retard can get a non-perfect, but decent GPA, but it is much harder to publish original research.
sublimity Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > no koolaid drunk. > > we could also consider a 4.0 from no name > university and a 3.6 from MIT. > > truth: 4.0 > 3.6 > > who gets hired? I really, really, really like this guy sublimity, I’m gonna start calling him Sublimity “Da Truth Hurts Beeyatchez”
I said “equal in every way” which implies same uni and Goldman, DE Shaw usually only choose from a select list. It’s not fair, but reality…
^ yeah, i def agree that it is not fair. there are plenty of things that aren’t seen with a GPA.
^impressed sub’s mom last night, wasn’t cause of my GPA
grad school GPA breakdown for y’all: A=average B=bad C=that dude in the program for real? never heard of him