Include GPA below 3 on resume?
Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:59 am
I got mixed views about this and I'm not sure if I should include my gpa on my resume. Let me know what you think. T20-T25 here.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=160496
lawfirmrecruiter wrote:If it is not on there, I assume your GPA is low and will ask for it anyway. Still a red flag whether it is there or not. All recruiters see this one the same.newyorker88 wrote:If your GPA is below a 3 it should not be on your resume. I've heard that from firms and career services.kalvano wrote:Not to be presumptuous, but why wouldn't your resume have your GPA on it? All resumes should.
You're dumbfounded that there are people at the bottom of the class?Aqualibrium wrote:I agree with the above poster.
I'm dumfounded at the thought of someone at a school with a b+ or better curve having a sub 3 gpa though. Hope you aren't paying full freight.
Pretty dick postAqualibrium wrote:I agree with the above poster.
I'm dumfounded at the thought of someone at a school with a b+ or better curve having a sub 3 gpa though. Hope you aren't paying full freight.
Not all schools have a GPA. What do they assume then?lawfirmrecruiter wrote:If it is not on there, I assume your GPA is low and will ask for it anyway. Still a red flag whether it is there or not. All recruiters see this one the same.newyorker88 wrote:If your GPA is below a 3 it should not be on your resume. I've heard that from firms and career services.kalvano wrote:Not to be presumptuous, but why wouldn't your resume have your GPA on it? All resumes should.
This is a faulty assumption. Not all employers will ask for GPA, and OP has already lost his chance at being hired by those that will. There is no benefit to listing the GPA, and only a theoetical downside to omitting it. OP should use his resume to highlight other accomplishments and skills.prezidentv8 wrote:I'm of the opinion that you put your GPA on the resume unless it's egregiously bad. It's going to get asked for one way or another if you have a crack at the job, and you may as well convey ownership of the problem.
Maybe so, but I would think that at least among legal employers very few wouldn't ask for the GPA immediately. And I would guess that most employers generally assume that grades were pretty horrible if they aren't disclosed.seatown12 wrote:This is a faulty assumption. Not all employers will ask for GPA, and OP has already lost his chance at being hired by those that will. There is no benefit to listing the GPA, and only a theoetical downside to omitting it. OP should use his resume to highlight other accomplishments and skills.prezidentv8 wrote:I'm of the opinion that you put your GPA on the resume unless it's egregiously bad. It's going to get asked for one way or another if you have a crack at the job, and you may as well convey ownership of the problem.
Yeah I think you've kind of captured the issue. I mean, 2.9 is bad, but I wouldn't say that it's the lowest that could be reasonably imagined for an omission. I'd say the 2.5-2.7 range is around where I was talking about.Anonymous User wrote:SO what would be an egregiously bad GPA? T10 school 2.9, clearly bottom 20% (I think I'm a bit above bottom 10% based on the GPA calculator thing that was on TLS a bit ago). Would that be a GPA to leave off or to put on? And if you don't put it on, would they assume something like a 2.6/7? Bc if that were the case, then I'm better off leaving it on. But if they don't question it, and I can click with the interviewer before grades come up, then I'd assume it's best to leave it off. But yeah, I'm really split as a 2.9 is sub-3.0 but not I guess THAT much below it (relatively speaking)..
C.J. Cregg from The West Wing wrote: You['re] like Butch and Sundance peering over the edge of a cliff to the boulder-filled rapids 300 feet below, thinking you better not jump 'cause there's a chance you might drown. [You've got below a 3.0], and you['re] are worried that [putting it on your resume] might make [you] look bad? It's the fall that's gonna kill ya.
Not really. A sub 3 gpa at a place where the median is 3.3 is bad. I get that someone has to be at the bottom of the class, but the idea that it's just luck separating the person who consistently gets B-'s and the person who consistently gets B+'s just isn't correct.Stringer Bell wrote:Pretty dick postAqualibrium wrote:I agree with the above poster.
I'm dumfounded at the thought of someone at a school with a b+ or better curve having a sub 3 gpa though. Hope you aren't paying full freight.
Forced quote much?thesealocust wrote:C.J. Cregg from The West Wing wrote: You['re] like Butch and Sundance peering over the edge of a cliff to the boulder-filled rapids 300 feet below, thinking you better not jump 'cause there's a chance you might drown. [You've got below a 3.0], and you['re] are worried that [putting it on your resume] might make [you] look bad? It's the fall that's gonna kill ya.
OP is trying to work with what he has. You can't go back and change your GPA and you're going to have to get a job no matter what your GPA. This quote is both mutilated and misused.Moxie wrote:Forced quote much?thesealocust wrote:C.J. Cregg from The West Wing wrote: You['re] like Butch and Sundance peering over the edge of a cliff to the boulder-filled rapids 300 feet below, thinking you better not jump 'cause there's a chance you might drown. [You've got below a 3.0], and you['re] are worried that [putting it on your resume] might make [you] look bad? It's the fall that's gonna kill ya.
Who said there was luck?Aqualibrium wrote:Not really. A sub 3 gpa at a place where the median is 3.3 is bad. I get that someone has to be at the bottom of the class, but the idea that it's just luck separating the person who consistently gets B-'s and the person who consistently gets B+'s just isn't correct.Stringer Bell wrote:Pretty dick postAqualibrium wrote:I agree with the above poster.
I'm dumfounded at the thought of someone at a school with a b+ or better curve having a sub 3 gpa though. Hope you aren't paying full freight.
That's the thing though, a c+ on that grading scale is essentially a D/D-. What's hard for me to fathom is what you have to do on an exam to receive the absolute worst grade a professor is willing to give. I mean I don't want to pile it on to op...i know he or she is in a tough spot. My comment was just an aside. The point is, leave the gpa off. No way it helps you to put it on.Anonymous User wrote:@ Aqualibrium, again, it's not as crazy as you think. Seriously, if you get four grades of 3.3 and two grades of 2.3, so essentially if you're at a top 10 school, full of really bright people, get four median grades because you're in the middle of the pack amongst very very bright students in 4 of your classes, and then each semester, have two really crappy exam days and finish with a C+ each semester amongst those four median grades, you're at about a 2.96 right there, sub 3.0. It's not a fun or happy position to be in knowing that two exams likely changed your career arc and crushed your dreams/spirit..
I generally agree with your posts, but here I think you are flat out, 100% wrong. You don't have to "do" anything "wrong" to get a C+. At my school with a 3.25 grading curve everyone knows what they are talking about when it comes to the exam and spot the most important issues. The people with a C+ generally do know what they are talking about..they just don't write as good of an answer as others. And in no way does it reflect on their capabilities or abilities as a potential lawyer IMO.Aqualibrium wrote:
That's the thing though, a c+ on that grading scale is essentially a D/D-. What's hard for me to fathom is what you have to do on an exam to receive the absolute worst grade a professor is willing to give. I mean I don't want to pile it on to op...i know he or she is in a tough spot. My comment was just an aside. The point is, leave the gpa off. No way it helps you to put it on.