gpa a factor after graduation?

On 20 Nov 2003 23:05:00 -0800, (sibersmith)
wrote:

Hey guys it's me again.

How big of a factor is GPA in getting a good aerospace job at a cool
company? The line "...Do good in school" is always given in advice
when I was growing up. To tell the truth I was holding a decent
3.3gpa untill I hit my math sequence at college. Now I have no more
'breeze' classes (history etc) to prop up my gpa and it's killing me.
I'm problobly around a 2.3 now.

This really bums me out. I went into Aerospace cause I wanted the job
of my dreams designing aircraft. Nobodys gona hire a medocree looser
that doesn't excell in math.

So how Important is a good GPA when looking for a job?

The truth hurts...
Don't bother filling out an application for Boeing. It will just go in
the recycle dumpster. You are down so low now even changing to a BA
will not help getting a job anywhere near aviation except as a guard
or working on the night cleanup crew - maybe.
How about an aviation tech school/line mechanic school or finish any
degree and go into the miitary? Or just jump in the military, Air
Force preferred, and get your head screwed on straight. In twenty
years I knew 5 people that made it from enlisted to officer. Well one
at least almost made officer. He turned down the commission because he
was already a SMSgt at 13 years and didn't want to start over at the
bottom again..

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:02:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"James Cho" wrote in message
. com...
As important as High School GPA is in being accepted to colleges, from
what I've heard. A Career Services person here at ERAU said that an
LM guy in charge of hiring looks for at least a 3.0 GPA, and prefers
at least 3.3.

That way LM gets all white collar type engineers, none of whom have ever
worked. This can be problematic in aerospace, as piloting is an inherently
blue collar activity. (ie operating equipment)


There was an old saying in the military, "if the minimum weren't good
enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." I'll confess, reluctantly, to
graduating from college with a 2.01 GPA (2.00 required for
graduation.) All I needed was an undergrad degree to get a commission
and got to USAF pilot training. (That was when there were a lot of
requirements and a low number of qualified candidates--the situation
is reversed today.)

I'll add, however, that once given the opportunity to compete, then
job performance becomes a big factor. When I got the chance, unlikely
as it might have seemed based on my undergrad performance, to go to
graduate school, I got serious. 4.0 for first MS, 3.95 for second.

Pilots, despite what engineer Tarver says, are inherently systems
managers, not blue collar equipment operators. While I was at
Northrop, the ex-mil aviators on the payroll where definitely "white
collar". The engineers were more rumpled polyester double-knit, plaids
and stripes sort of Goodwill eclectic. Maybe it was because the SME
("Subject Matter Expert") category of employee got paid better than
the engineers.

Bottom line, however, is that when you come right out of college in a
competitive world, the recruiter has only limited info to base a
decision on. If there are a load of folks with no work experience,
qualified degrees, and not much more, then GPA is going to be
decisive. Higher will always be better than lower, even if that isn't
necesarily indictive of potential.

You've got to get hired first before you can demonstrate your
creativity, tenaciousness, management skill and dependability.

Having been connected with airline training and selection in the past
- here goes. All the job applicants look alike. Clean, neat, dark
suit, sober ties, polished shoes, haircuts, mostly college grads, so
what is left? GPA is one of the distinguishing factors. Another factor
is 'desire to fly'. I recall one instance where two Ivy college grads
were rejected in favor of a comunity college (two year) grad simply
because the Ivy guys presented the attitude that they were doing the
compnay a favor in allowing themselves to be hired. OTH the 2-year kid
was like an eager puppy dog; he wanted to fly and exhibited the
willingness to take any flight anywhere any time in any conditions.
As for math - in my first attempt at college I never let homework take
precedence over sports and surfing . . . with predictable results.
Later on I discovered that if you ask questions and do the homework
college math is easy . . .Duh!
Walt BJ

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:02:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"James Cho" wrote in message
. com...
As important as High School GPA is in being accepted to colleges, from
what I've heard. A Career Services person here at ERAU said that an
LM guy in charge of hiring looks for at least a 3.0 GPA, and prefers
at least 3.3.

That way LM gets all white collar type engineers, none of whom have ever
worked. This can be problematic in aerospace, as piloting is an
inherently
blue collar activity. (ie operating equipment)


There was an old saying in the military, "if the minimum weren't good
enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." I'll confess, reluctantly, to
graduating from college with a 2.01 GPA (2.00 required for
graduation.) All I needed was an undergrad degree to get a commission
and got to USAF pilot training. (That was when there were a lot of
requirements and a low number of qualified candidates--the situation
is reversed today.)

I'll add, however, that once given the opportunity to compete, then
job performance becomes a big factor. When I got the chance, unlikely
as it might have seemed based on my undergrad performance, to go to
graduate school, I got serious. 4.0 for first MS, 3.95 for second.

Pilots, despite what engineer Tarver says, are inherently systems
managers, not blue collar equipment operators.

In fact, under the law, pilots are equipment operators. An operator, as
legislated by the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers.

While I was at
Northrop, the ex-mil aviators on the payroll where definitely "white
collar".

A delusion only, as militry pilots are inherently blue collar and in the
times Ed pretends to recall were a majority physical education majors.
Definately neither educated as "white collar", or skilled as managers.

The engineers were more rumpled polyester double-knit, plaids
and stripes sort of Goodwill eclectic. Maybe it was because the SME
("Subject Matter Expert") category of employee got paid better than
the engineers.

I go with levis and a Pendelton, most of the time.

As to the subject matter expert, the cocktail aviation circuit is pretty
well dead today. Although Keithie did comment to me on several ocasions
where Northrop, or the governemnt, had promoted a secretary to such a
position; based mostly on her ability to tie a knot in a cherry stem with
her tongue. The project manager for B-1 flight test was of that extraction.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:40:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

There was an old saying in the military, "if the minimum weren't good
enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." I'll confess, reluctantly, to
graduating from college with a 2.01 GPA (2.00 required for
graduation.) All I needed was an undergrad degree to get a commission
and got to USAF pilot training. (That was when there were a lot of
requirements and a low number of qualified candidates--the situation
is reversed today.)

I'll add, however, that once given the opportunity to compete, then
job performance becomes a big factor. When I got the chance, unlikely
as it might have seemed based on my undergrad performance, to go to
graduate school, I got serious. 4.0 for first MS, 3.95 for second.

Pilots, despite what engineer Tarver says, are inherently systems
managers, not blue collar equipment operators.

In fact, under the law, pilots are equipment operators. An operator, as
legislated by the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers.

I'm sorry, but neither military nor commercial aviators are members of
the IBOE. The membership may choose to call pilots whatever they wish,
but the IBOE doesn't make any "law" that describes nomeclature for
pilot skills.

While I was at
Northrop, the ex-mil aviators on the payroll where definitely "white
collar".

A delusion only, as militry pilots are inherently blue collar and in the
times Ed pretends to recall were a majority physical education majors.
Definately neither educated as "white collar", or skilled as managers.

What the hell do you mean by "the times Ed pretends to recall"?

In the sixties, when I went to USAF pilot training and flew my first
combat tour, the "majority" of pilot candidates were graduates of
USAFA (fully one third of my training class came from AFA). All,
regardless of commission source were full four year college bachelor
degree, and most were engineering specialities.

In the seventies when I was directing the Air Training Command
Undergraduate Rated Assignments office, we kept stats on input,
success rates, causes of failures and output. More than 80% during
that decade were graduate engineers and nearly 30% already had
graduate degrees on UPT entry.

In the eighties when military pilot training input was drastically
reduced. By that time the engineering/physical science (that's not PE,
but phyics, chem, etc.) grads were approaching 100%. More candidates
than slots, means higher selectivity and arguably irrelevant selection
criteria.

Let me suggest that operating a $30 million dollar weapons system by
yourself, controlling not only the vehicle but the sensors,
communications, defensive systems, navigation, electronic
countermeasures, etc, all requiring total situational awareness and
split-second decision-making is indeed an exercise in management.

The engineers were more rumpled polyester double-knit, plaids
and stripes sort of Goodwill eclectic. Maybe it was because the SME
("Subject Matter Expert") category of employee got paid better than
the engineers.

I go with levis and a Pendelton, most of the time.

As to the subject matter expert, the cocktail aviation circuit is pretty
well dead today. Although Keithie did comment to me on several ocasions
where Northrop, or the governemnt, had promoted a secretary to such a
position; based mostly on her ability to tie a knot in a cherry stem with
her tongue. The project manager for B-1 flight test was of that extraction.


Your final comment is ridiculous and irrelevant. The aerospace
industry is competitive and very capital intensive. Research expenses
and development costs place it well beyond "cocktail aviation
circuits".

SMEs are the link between the industry and the customer. That's the
place where requirements are developed and operational solutions are
defined.

You want to go back, John, and describe your qualifications again?

On 21 Nov 2003 17:19:40 GMT, (OXMORON1) wrote:

Who was it woh said..."The world is run by C students" or something to that
effect?

No, not anymore, that is the older, more stringent, pre-Bush standard.

I agree!

Forty-one years in aerospace has shown the need for really good mathematics
comprehension, including some math fields you may have to learn on your own
since you probably will never heard of them in undergrad school.

Good luck

WDA

end

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"sibersmith" wrote in message
...
Hey guys it's me again.

How big of a factor is GPA in getting a good aerospace job at a cool
company? The line "...Do good in school" is always given in advice
when I was growing up. To tell the truth I was holding a decent
3.3gpa untill I hit my math sequence at college. Now I have no more
'breeze' classes (history etc) to prop up my gpa and it's killing me.
I'm problobly around a 2.3 now.

This really bums me out. I went into Aerospace cause I wanted the job
of my dreams designing aircraft. Nobodys gona hire a medocree looser
that doesn't excell in math.

So how Important is a good GPA when looking for a job?

If you had dragged down your gpa with general ed you might have some
wiggle
room, but all those cs and ds in math and engineering courses probably
mean
you should look outside engineering for a job.

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:40:56 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
.. .

There was an old saying in the military, "if the minimum weren't good
enough, it wouldn't be the minimum." I'll confess, reluctantly, to
graduating from college with a 2.01 GPA (2.00 required for
graduation.) All I needed was an undergrad degree to get a commission
and got to USAF pilot training. (That was when there were a lot of
requirements and a low number of qualified candidates--the situation
is reversed today.)

I'll add, however, that once given the opportunity to compete, then
job performance becomes a big factor. When I got the chance, unlikely
as it might have seemed based on my undergrad performance, to go to
graduate school, I got serious. 4.0 for first MS, 3.95 for second.

Pilots, despite what engineer Tarver says, are inherently systems
managers, not blue collar equipment operators.

In fact, under the law, pilots are equipment operators. An operator, as
legislated by the International Brotherhood of Operating Engineers.

I'm sorry, but neither military nor commercial aviators are members of
the IBOE. The membership may choose to call pilots whatever they wish,
but the IBOE doesn't make any "law" that describes nomeclature for
pilot skills.

IBOE has been around for over 120 years and ahve done a very good job of
making sure operating equipment remains a blue collar activity, under the
law.

While I was at
Northrop, the ex-mil aviators on the payroll where definitely "white
collar".

A delusion only, as militry pilots are inherently blue collar and in the
times Ed pretends to recall were a majority physical education majors.
Definately neither educated as "white collar", or skilled as managers.

What the hell do you mean by "the times Ed pretends to recall"?

If you truely remembered then you would also recall that most of your peers
would be junior highschool physical education instructors, were they not
pilots.

In the sixties, when I went to USAF pilot training and flew my first
combat tour, the "majority" of pilot candidates were graduates of
USAFA (fully one third of my training class came from AFA). All,
regardless of commission source were full four year college bachelor
degree, and most were engineering specialities.

That seems to be quite a select group you were with, Ed.

In the seventies when I was directing the Air Training Command
Undergraduate Rated Assignments office, we kept stats on input,
success rates, causes of failures and output. More than 80% during
that decade were graduate engineers and nearly 30% already had
graduate degrees on UPT entry.

Bull****, most pilots are not engineers. The only place here what you
writewas ever true was at the USAF flight test pilot school.

snip of fantasy gone completely over the top

So how Important is a good GPA when looking for a job?

People who visit campuses to hire graduating seniors say they are very
interested in one's ability to speak and write well. My friends who
have worked in industry in scientific fields told me that young
engineers and scientists are judged by their reports. If the reports
are badly written, they make a poor impression.

So my advice to you is, learn to write better than you did when you
posted this query.

vince norris

"Tarver Engineering" wrote

"Tex Houston" wrote

"sibersmith" wrote
This really bums me out. I went into Aerospace cause I wanted the job
of my dreams designing aircraft. Nobodys gona hire a medocree looser
that doesn't excell in math.

So how Important is a good GPA when looking for a job?

If this is an example of your work you might put in some extra hours of
study in English. Just using a spellchecker would help.

Nope, the low math grades pretty well disqualify him from engineering.
There are plenty of places where he could make a good living with the 2.3,
however. The only thing that would help is if he is one of those "worked
through school". If family paid, or there were loans, forget engineering.

GPA is a go-no go screen for many companies for new-grads. We won't review a
resume for a new-grad whose GPA is below 3.0. It's less important for people
with 2-5 years experience and GPWhat? after 5 years in industry.

Tarver is right that mathematics is critical. I interviewed a power supply
designer yesterday. He had 10 years experience as a technician, 12 years as
an engineer but he was 'way too weak analytically to do the work. Most
people who haven't done design don't realize that design-is-analysis.
Drawings only define-what-you will analyse. The analysis provides the
details of dimensions, component values and so on. Analysis proves that it
will work in all of the conditions contained within the customer's
requirements. All this is from an aerospace point of view. I've worked in
other industries where un-degreed engineers are common and virtually no
analysis was done. The practice in those places was to get the topology
right, breadboard or prototype the design and refine the design in hardware
to make it work. Not only can we not afford to work that way, doing so is
unacceptable because the breadboard and prototype testing can't possibly
cover the range of environments, component variations, workmanship and
process variations.

I was a blockhead at math when I flunked out of college in 1967. The stern
discipline of Hyman G Rickover's schools jerked my **** straight and when I
went back to school, I had the great good fortune to have a calculus
professor who was a great teacher, rather than a mumbling,
English-is-plainly-not-my-mother-tongue eccentric. Both those things were
necessary for me to acquire the skills I needed.

The ability to write clearly and precisely is also very important. Not only
does sloppy spelling and grammar prejudice your audience against what you
are trying to communicate, it also creates ambiguity about what you actually
said, which can be deadly.

That said, the anchor-man in my class went to work for HP as a sales
engineer. In the early modern era (1977) he made $100K the first year, about
6 times what_I_made that year.