Originally Posted by PTGregD

Your only rebuttal seems to be that people with high GPAs have no extra curricular activities or work experience. Like I've always said, you need more than just a high GPA.

No, because my argument is not that the GPA isn't good to throw down...you've strayed off-point (and for once, I've stayed on-point xD).

My point is: It is that it is no less pompous than throwing down the Golden Key Society. Keep this in mind as you read this post (and perhaps even reread my last one).

I don't know why you think you shouldn't put your GPA on your resume, since if you go to any resume critiquing session on campus, or for that matter, anywhere in the world, they would tell you to put your GPA on it.

You'll note I never said "don't put your GPA on your resume." Instead, I said "It's unnecessary if you have enough other stuff to effectively illustrate your qualities." I don't think any resume critiquing place would argue with that...they'd just say to throw down your GPA anyway 'just in case.'

Which is a pompous thing to do.

Severely flawed or not, 9 times out of 10, GPA is used to narrow down the field of candidates for competitive jobs. Whether you agree with me or not, that's the truth. I'm NOT saying that gets you the job, but let's just say it gets your resume looked at for an addition 2-3 seconds, because in reality, recruiters only look at your resume for about 5-10 seconds at most.

How long does it take to check a resume? I could probably reasonably assess a resume in 30 seconds, (Given that I don't deal with them every day). I might not peel through it fine enough to catch grammar errors or the like, but I could probably make a decent guess as to whether or not you'd have the qualities I'm looking for. Again, I'm not saying don't put your GPA on...but here goes nonetheless:

Unless explicitly stated by the company (ie. if they are approaching the resume in an 'unbiased'** way), during this 5-10 seconds, they scan to see how well balanced a resume is...Work Experience, Volunteering, Skills, Awards...if all these are 'relatively the same size' then you've presented yourself as a balanced employee. Of course the exception is work experience, where you are exempt from having a long list of experience if you have none, but show potential.

(**What I mean by 'bias' is that sometimes companies will put specific emphasis on one thing...such as a specific type of volunteering duty, or a specific type of job experience (such as co-op). For these jobs your best bet is to make a customized resume just for them, to emphasize these qualities.)

Potential can be shown in a few ways...One (weaker) way is through GPA. This shows that you didn't just half ass your way through your education...but a more effective way to build up your first impression is to show them you...show them what kind of person you are. Your choice of extra-curriculars (paired with a few 'Dean's Honour List' - like notations) do exactly that:

So enjoy writing your long list of extra curricular activities that probably won't even be read before they dismiss the resume.

...nothing says it needs to be a long list. My resume has exactly 2 extracurriculars (and not my GPA) on it that I've selected as the most effective. The basic idea is that you choose one of your strongest traits, and sell that trait. I typically like to sell my compassion...so I put down, for instance, working with the homeless.

(I like to sell compassion since I typically apply for teaching-style jobs, Sylvan, Kumon, etc. or like I noted before, the employment centre)

....unless of course you're applying for McDonald's

As I mentioned, I don't have my GPA on my resume, and I'm doing alright because I've presented myself appropriately. I assure you I've never worked a McDonald's, and certainly don't plan to barring an unforeseen event.

Originally Posted by precious

do they look at your gpa for the year or your Cumulative Average

You put your Cumulative GPA.

-----------------------------------------------

and @ Mowicz:

I read through your post, and ultimately I just have to reiterate that putting your GPA on your resume is not pompous. If you are in school, or have been out of school for less than ~1-2 years, your GPA should be the very first thing you put on your resume, right under the heading of Education.

You may choose not to put it, and that's great, it's your personal choice; but I can virtually guarantee that a lot of places will disregard you because of that ("It must have been really bad because he didn't want to put it" etc.). It's an established norm to put your GPA on your resume, not a pompous thing to do, and no competent recruiter will see it as pompous.

If you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm ultimately trying to convince you that the sky is blue, and you're saying it's green.

Most peoples' first jobs come through connections (at least the people that I know), and other jobs come because of the experience in that job.

I don't push myself for a high mark because I don't want to go to grad school - I just need to get by, and I'd like to have a life!

Well, I just got my first job recently. I didn't put my GPA on my resume and I had no connections. To be honest, I don't know why I got the job. Everyone else who got hired with me, had a lot of experience. I think the real ticket is the interview plus maybe references. If you have an amazing resume, and you couldn't own up to it in an interview, they probably won't consider you unless if you have specific experience for that job and had great references.

Originally Posted by feonateresa

I think the real ticket is the interview

This is 100% correct; I'm merely stating that putting your GPA on your resume aids in obtaining that interview.

It gets your foot in the door, so to speak.

I'm ultimately trying to convince you that the sky is blue, and you're saying it's green.

First and foremost stop taking these little shots at me. I do notice, and I WILL take you to school...so stop it now because I'm no longer amused. This is strike number 2 in this thread alone and there have been others.



Here is how this discussion has gone:

1) You suggest putting Golden Key on your resume is pompous.

2) I suggest putting your GPA on your resume is more pompous...which you have failed to even acknowledge, let alone rebut...but since this is simply an "Interval" measurement, with no absolutes, this does not say putting your GPA is pompous, and instead I'm trying to demonstrate that putting Golden Key is not pompous. I've suggested nothing more, and everything else is you putting words in my mouth.

3) You miscontrued my point multiple times, and instead of arguing against the fact that GPA is more pompous than Golden Key, you simply say GPA is not pompous. Well done. You're agreeing with me that throwing down Golden Key is not pompous.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

First and foremost stop taking these little shots at me. I do notice, and I WILL take you to school...so stop it now because I'm no longer amused. This is strike number 2 in this thread alone and there have been others.

Are you threatening me?

Originally Posted by Mowicz

I suggest putting your GPA on your resume is more pompous...which you have failed to even acknowledge, let alone rebut

From an earlier post by me: "It's an established norm to put your GPA on your resume, not a pompous thing to do, and no competent recruiter will see it as pompous."

What's that about me not acknowledging it?

Originally Posted by Mowicz

You miscontrued my point multiple times, and instead of arguing against the fact that GPA is more pompous than Golden Key, you simply say GPA is not pompous. Well done. You're agreeing with me that throwing down Golden Key is not pompous.

This entire paragraph is a logical fallacy, but putting that aside:

I argued that putting your GPA on your resume is not pompous. By doing so, I'm inherently saying that Golden Key is more pompous.

So I'm not sure how that's agreeing with you.

Anyways, I'd hold your hand through the rest of my arguments (subtle attack), but I don't think I want anymore threats from you, so as far as I'm concerned, this argument is done.

Okay guys, let's try to cool it, no need to fly off the handle.

Originally Posted by feonateresa

Okay guys, let's try to cool it, no need to fly off the handle.

I'm fine
/shrug

i'll look at the job i'm applying for to decide whether to put gpa or gold stuff. i don't consider both of these things as pompus, depends on the intention of the person

Originally Posted by ZZZZZZZZ

i'll look at the job i'm applying for to decide whether to put gpa or gold stuff. i don't consider both of these things as pompus, depends on the intention of the person

I agree, I don't think it's a pompous thing either. What's really the difference between putting either of these things and submitting your transcript anyway. I'm sure many employers do want to know they are hiring someone who excels academically in school on top of being well-rounded.

As for putting down the GK, I feel like it's the same as putting down any other honour societies you may be part of (i.e. the biology society) and that alone is sort of under extracurriculars/memberships subsections on a resume. You should feel a bit proud that you've been accepted - not in a showing-off sort of manner but that you've been acknowledged for working hard at school.

Despite all this, I think if people don't take it too far (or make it more than it is - can be a bit overrated) there's nothing harmless in it.

Ok, screw all of it...because I wasn't threatening you and I don't want this to explode into something I didn't even intend it to...so I'll say this very plainly:

I was saying you're not the only one who can take little jabs at other people...and I would take you to school (ie. by taking jabs back at you) if you kept it up.

Nothing physical about my remarks.

We cool G?

Anyways, I'd hold your hand through the rest of my arguments (subtle attack), but I don't think I want anymore threats from you, so as far as I'm concerned, this argument is done.

We can make it physical if you want...I mean we are bound to meet up soon enough, if you want to have a quote unquote 'duelling arm-wrestle' or something more intense, I'm game. I mean what I said...no more subtle attacks. Final warning.

(By the way, your explicit acknowledgement "(subtle attack)" simply shows me you know exactly what I'm refering to. No excuses.)

--------------

Now I will explain both, why you failed to address my post, and why my paragraph is NOT a logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by PTGregD

This entire paragraph is a logical fallacy, but putting that aside:

I argued that putting your GPA on your resume is not pompous. By doing so, I'm inherently saying that Golden Key is more pompous.

So I'm not sure how that's agreeing with you.

Let "Putting your GPA" be represented by the letter A.
Let "Putting Golden Key" be represented by the letter B.
Let "Pompous" be represented by the letter P.


Statement 1: (Me)

B < A. (Putting GPA is more pompous than putting a club notation)

At this point, we either have P < B < A, or B < P < A, (Both of which claim P < A (GPA is pompous))

Or: B < P < A (Neither GPA nor putting Golden Key is pompous).

Statement 2: (You)

A < P. (Putting GPA is not pompous).

We have B < A < P.

Or:

|---B----A----P---|

But then B < P also...which is what I set out to argue.

--------------

Why did you fail to address my post (ie. the statement B < P)

Saying A < P says absolutely nothing about B. It does not challenge the fact that B < A, and infact, taking B < A and A < P gives B < P (ie. you agree with me).

You're inherently saying nothing.

-------------

How would you have argued that B is not < P?

Either:

Argue that A < B...because then either:

a) A < P < B (which is what you want)
b) A < B < P (which you don't want)

Then argue P < B...so it's the first case.

Or:

a) Directly argue that B is not < P.

--------------

There. Logic plain and simple...If you can't follow it, that's not my problem.

Originally Posted by Mowicz

Ok, screw all of it...because I wasn't threatening you and I don't want this to explode into something I didn't even intend it to...so I'll say this very plainly:

I was saying you're not the only one who can take little jabs at other people...and I would take you to school (ie. by taking jabs back at you) if you kept it up.

Nothing physical about my remarks.

We cool G?



We can make it physical if you want...I mean we are bound to meet up soon enough, if you want to have a quote unquote 'duelling arm-wrestle' or something more intense, I'm game. I mean what I said...no more subtle attacks. Final warning.

(By the way, your explicit acknowledgement "(subtle attack)" simply shows me you know exactly what I'm refering to. No excuses.)

--------------

Now I will explain both, why you failed to address my post, and why my paragraph is NOT a logical fallacy.



Let "Putting your GPA" be represented by the letter A.
Let "Putting Golden Key" be represented by the letter B.
Let "Pompous" be represented by the letter P.


Statement 1: (Me)

B < A. (Putting GPA is more pompous than putting a club notation)

Statement 2: (You)

A < P. (Putting GPA is not pompous).

We have B < A < P.

Or:

|---B----A----P---|

But then B < P also...which is what I set out to argue.

--------------

Why did you fail to address my post (ie. the statement B < P)

Saying A < P says absolutely nothing about B. It does not challenge the fact that B < A, and infact, taking B < A and A < P gives B < P (ie. you agree with me).

-------------

How would you have argued that B is not < P?

Either:

Argue that A < B...because then either:

a) A < P < B (which is what you want)
b) A < B < P (which you don't want)

Then argue P < B...so it's the first case.

Or:

a) Directly argue that B is not < P.

--------------

There. Logic plain and simple.

You just had to use your math skills didn't you... Lol. Nicely explained though.

Solution:

You continue to not put your GPA on your resume.
I'll continue to put my GPA on my resume.




*walks away*

I love violence. I wouldn't mind seeing this.

(Yes, I'm egging you both on. )