Anonymous User wrote:I KNOW you will refuse to answer this question. So, instead of "answering" it, can I ask that you "give the least bullshit numerical answer?" You can trust that I will use the "least bullshit numerical answer" only as a guide. But. Here it goes: 3 years serious work experience. Large, well-known firm in a prestigious industry. Accolades. How much GPA does that "buy" me that I can add to my actual GPA to reach a firm's internal, unstated GPA cutoff.
Yes, different for every firm. So, let's apply this ONLY to firms that would at least consider to hire in my actual GPA range, even if they rarley do so. I already know which firms meet that definition from another source.
this question seems a bit nonsensical but will try:
if you are below our cut, and we have sufficient candidates we like above our cut, you probably have a close to zero chance. if you are awesome and can wow me there's a chance.
otherwise, the only things i have to judge you on - really - are grades and the person you present to me in 20 minutes.
how can you prove to me that your awesome accolades are independently achieved? if you are a rhodes scholar, for example, that's an achievement where i understand the process for how someone obtains it and it's independent verification of awesomeness. but how do i know what your job was, really? vice president at goldman could mean you're an investment banking star, could mean you're back-office schlub, could mean your daddy's a big client.
20 minutes with you can sometimes indicate you've got more brainpower working than your grades suggest. and sometimes it can do the opposite.