Looking back on recruiting, what tips do you have for readers interested in pursuing a career in S&T?

S&T should probably be looked at as (1) S (sales) and (2) T (trading). For sales, it’s not so much hard technical knowledge that you need (just brush up a bit on whichever group/field you are interviewing with), as much as you really need sharp communication skills and be ready to sell yourself. For trading, on the other hand, mathematics and programming skills are going to be strong selling points. So majoring in one of those subjects (if not both), or taking elective courses in these subjects will probably help you. It also seems like technical schools (MIT, Carnegie Mellon, etc.) are more likely to be target schools for the trading side, at least for those who have just received their undergraduate degrees. Besides the math and programming skills, it will also definitely help to know trading strategies, formulas and general technical and industry knowledge as well.

There are obviously different roles within the T of S&T, so for some, the technical knowledge will be most important, for others, it will be all about the programming, modeling and so forth, and still, for others, it will be a mix of the two with strong math skills. Generally speaking, regardless of the position, strong math skills will definitely help.

Now for either area (sales or trading), make sure you are paying attention to the market – both the broader economy/stock market and whatever particular market you are interviewing with (for example, for a commodities role, it would be beneficial to know not just about the broader markets, but also how the commodities market has been fairing and where some of the popular commodities are trading – gold, oil and even a few others. In addition to knowing where the markets are, you’ll want to know where they were and where you think they’re heading.

What group were you placed in with your BB and was this your group of choice?

I was placed into a derivatives marketing group. In the end, this was really an investment banking product group, neither pure sales nor pure trading.

I was not asked for input on where I would like to be placed – in other words, there was no “sell day” for me to meet with and rank the different groups. Honestly, I would have preferred to be placed on a trading desk, in other words, a “pure T” desk.

What did an average day look like for you as an analyst? How many hours did you usually spend on the desk per week?

I’d usually get in at around 7a.m. The first things on my list would be to check my e-mail and run through the relevant news/read updates from our traders. After I settle in a bit, assuming there are no fire drills, I’d sit down with my director, who worked on the floor just a few desks away from me, to go over with what needed to be done for the day. Since we sat right next to each other, in the same row, we didn’t need to have an “official” meeting in an office/conference room. During the day I’d be answering phones, pricing different strategies for potential transactions, working on presentations (usually as part of a bigger pitch put on by one or another banking industry group whose client is interested in, for example, hedging strategies), and if there were no presentations that needed to be finished immediately, I might run some kind of analysis.

I would also coordinate with our legal, credit, and documentations teams. If a client has any payment or documentation issues, I would usually take care of those. As a quick side note, always be nice to your internal resources – you should try to be nice to everyone anyway, but these are the people who can make your job a lot easier or a lot more difficult.

Keep in mind that this is more of a “normal” day, if there is such a thing, when both my associate and director were on the desk as well. When my associate and director were out of town traveling, my days changed a bit and I would get the opportunity to have more in-depth conversations with clients – this was definitely an enjoyable aspect of my job.

In terms of hours, usually I worked 60-75 hours a week – usually 7-9ish on week days and a bit of weekend work, on average. There were days when I didn’t get out until midnight, and others when I cruised out by 6. During slower periods, I might work more like 55 hours per week, but it really depended on your boss, workflow and group dynamic. There were people within my division who had different directors and covered different industries who probably worked under 60 hours/week on regular basis – they probably worked closer to 50-55 hours/week. That always frustrated me a bit, but, again, in my case it was the luck of the draw and group need that pretty much decided where I went.

Which task was your favorite and which task was your least favorite? Why?

Favorite task: Probably executing trades – there was a certain rush to it – and, when I had the opportunity, speaking to clients about their options, etc.

Least favorite task: Pricing swaption collars. Clients never did these and there were days when I’d spending 30 or more minutes pricing various swaption collars since our trading software didn’t make these as simple to price as a regular interest rate collar.

What skill sets do you believe to be essential to succeeding in S&T?

Honestly, I only feel comfortable speaking to the position that I held, although this is probably applicable to pretty much any position in S&T. Of course, there are the basics, as with most finance/math/analytical-intensive positions including: attention to detail, analytically-inclined, grasping the technical concepts, being able to multi-task, etc. There are also, however, two other points that sometimes aren’t quite as obvious that I think are also worth mentioning.

A willingness to learn and an interest in learning definitely rank high up on the list. A lot of tasks in the S&T world are going to be group specific/industry specific/product specific/how your director wants it done. You will not know this stuff before you enter the group; you will learn it on the job. Be open and interested in learning. Do not ever think you are too good to learn how to do something or how something works and do not assume you already know something. I’ve had more than my fair share of mistakes pointed out to me and different, whether better or just preferred ways of tackling projects, presenting findings, etc.

The second point is that you should try to get along with your co-workers as best you can. This is probably obvious to bankers, but many people going for S&T, or at least the T, don’t think that it is necessary to really be personable and get along with all of your co-workers. Yes, it can suck, but it is a relationship business. If your bosses do not like you, you might not get the most interesting projects or gain as much insight into the business that you can gain while just talking on the desk. Also, and perhaps most importantly, they might think that the clients will share their perspective and not like you either. In this case, you won’t be speaking or working with any clients and if you are not working with clients you probably won’t be advancing in this career anytime in the near future.

For those interested in a math-intensive position, which group within S&T do you recommend they pursue?

I would definitely recommend that they stick to the trading side of the business, ideally in a position that is specifically looking for some with programming and modeling skills. Although the trading side is probably the ideal side to be on, if you are in a corporate marketing position on the sales side, you may be able to use your math skills too.

What drew you to S&T instead of, for example, IB?

One of the reasons that I switched from journalism to finance while I was in college was an interest in investing and trading. As a former athlete, I was enamored by the competitive nature and the way of measuring your results and your skills with trades. Just as I couldn’t find my satisfaction in journalism, I wouldn’t be able to find it in most other quantitative areas outside of trading either, such as banking or research.

Why did you decide to leave?

As I mentioned before, I never really wanted to work in the type of group I was in – I was far more interested in the prop/trading side of the business. I feel bad saying it since I liked the people I worked with, but it was just a bad fit. I guess that I could have asked to be moved to a trading desk, but at the end of the day, it wasn’t just the group; I wanted a better work/life balance. Now I am not even in the S&T world anymore, in fact, I am completely out of the finance world and while I am missing the paychecks at the moment, I am enjoying the opportunities I have to pursue all of my other interests. Although, with the limited funds I now have, I still maintain a small portfolio and trade.

Is there anything you miss about the business?

I miss some of my colleagues. As I mentioned before, my colleagues were never the problem. In fact, depending on your desk, it can almost begin to feel like a family. And just like in a big family, there will be some people you love, and some people that you do not particularly care for at any given time – and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. When you spend over half of your day, five or more days a week with one group of people, you develop a bit of an affinity for them. Having Bloomberg at my fingertips was nice as well. Oh… and, as I mentioned before, the money was nice too. I miss having money sometimes…ok…many times.

If you could do it all over again, what would you have changed – whether it be in terms of group selection, work, preparation, etc?

I wish I would’ve taken more math and computer programming classes when I was an undergrad. I also wish that I would’ve pushed harder for a trading position – been more upfront about my interests instead of doing the usual interviewee thing and saying “I’ll be happy wherever.” Sometimes, and this is more of a personal thing, not as much of a missed opportunity thing, I wish I enjoyed networking more – I kind of hate networking. I feel like networking is using people, even though it’s not, and even if it is, everyone does it. I still do network sometimes, but I hate it. Also, I do not think I am particularly good at it. Thankfully S&T isn’t as big of a networking game as banking seems to be – it still matters though and it would’ve been nice to be better at it or at least enjoy it more so that I might have a shot at becoming better at it.

Any other advice for those interested in S&T and for those just starting their S&T programs?

Work hard in undergrad and try to build the technical skill sets you’ll need – not necessarily through coursework, but do some research on your own. Have confidence in yourself, but not arrogance, during interviews. Be open to learning regardless of your position – being open-minded and eager will give you far more options. Continue learning off the job and make friends with both your group and colleagues in other groups, especially if you want to potentially change groups and/or employers. Lastly, for those that haven’t yet broken into S&T, reach out to alumni, network with professionals and get your name out there. Having support will always help you get the interviews.

Getting that SA 1st Round Interview

For the SA position, since applicants will generally have a far lighter resume in terms of work experience given their age and the natural path of these opportunities (junior year is usually the first year of strong opportunity), work experience does not often matter all that much. Tackling this list in order, school brand would be most important, followed by an applicant’s GPA, followed by leadership and extracurricular experience and then, on the same level as EC experience, would be one’s work experience.

School brand, first and foremost, is absolutely a key to earning the SA interview for two reasons: 1) given the lack of work experience and the banker’s love of the school pedigree, applicants generally don’t have the tools to offset the lack of that pedigree, and 2) target school students will have a far more effective and better-represented alumni base, which they can and should utilize to build their network and candidacy support. At the end of the day, bankers love to see that target school name on your resume, and while it doesn’t get you the job or the interview by itself (no single factor will), it definitely keeps you on their radar and opens their eyes to the rest of the resume. Furthermore, while attending a target does not guarantee you an interview, attending a non-target will definitely make at least a few of the resume reviewers either immediately drop your resume, or move dangerously close to that action (this, of course, does not take into account the networking avenue).

Next on the list is GPA and before anyone asks, you do not need a 3.95 or even a 3.75 to work in banking. Sure, a high GPA definitely helps and supports the strength of your candidacy, but a GPA of 3.94 is not by any means vastly superior to a GPA of 3.54, and that GPA of 3.94 will not carry your candidacy and guarantee you an interview despite a poor overall resume. That said, the GPA is definitely an important aspect of your resume, and I see it as second most important behind school brand for landing the SA 1st round interview. First, the GPA is often used to create a hard cutoff to weed out candidates right off the bat before considering the appeal of any other aspect of one’s candidacy including school brand – that hard cut off is usually between a 3.0 and a 3.3. Next, in addition to the hard cut off, bankers use the GPA to 1) compare the performance of target students who are often not majoring in a business discipline as a further measure of whether they can handle the IB position, and 2) separate stronger non- and semi-target students, who are often held to higher GPA standards, from those students that fall more towards the middle of the spectrum – think “good, not great.” Without a strong GPA, you will definitely be fighting more of an uphill battle, and if you are attending a non-target, you will definitely be faced with a difficult path ahead (again, this ignores the advantages gained by networking if utilized effectively).

Beyond the school brand and the GPA we get to your experiences, both extracurricular/leadership and work experiences. Since as a summer analyst it is almost expected for students to not have impressive work experience, the previous two categories are generally weighted much heavier. That said, there are exceptions to every rule and since the expectation is for very little in this case, having some solid work experience or strong leadership experience will definitely strengthen your candidacy and significantly improve your chances of that 1st round interview. Generally speaking, however, applicants usually have decent work experience including non-IB related busy-work, small firm ops, administrative or university/campus experience, which will not have a big impact on the reviewers. Extracurricular and leadership experience is definitely helpful as well, but again, to a lesser degree than the previous two categories. Having a collegiate sports background, especially in a leadership position (captain, for example) for example, will help to provide that fit and interest aspect of your profile that is truly so important to bankers. Holding a leadership position in a professional club such as a Wall St. club will help you on two fronts: 1) you will be seen by bankers as someone with a bit more knowledge and passion for the job and 2) the network you can build in that position through the club’s reach will definitely help your candidacy. Bankers want leaders, and bankers want to see that you are more than a 3.83 econ major – get out there and make an impact.

Regarding the 5th topic of relevant coursework and knowledge base, this varies from shop to shop, but generally, BBs won’t care much about this at all, while small boutiques, especially small no-name shops, might put at least a fair share of emphasis on this category since, given their lack of a formal training program, they will prefer interns that are able to hit the ground running, meaning those that don’t need to be taught the basics of finance and accounting, and ideally know more than simply the basics. Regarding relevant coursework, there is no need to list strictly introductory courses – such as microeconomics and intro to probability. Although colleges have different names for introductory accounting and finance courses, listing those on your resume is usually acceptable since financial accounting courses, for example, will be extremely beneficial to banking even on an introductory level. Finally, do not list courses that are not important to banking – advanced math and econ courses are acceptable, and finance and accounting courses are always welcome – beyond that, there isn’t much of a need.

Getting that FT 1st Round Interview

FT recruiting is a bit different than SA recruiting in that bankers know FT recruiting is not a small 2-3 month interview, it is the real deal and, as such, bankers will stress each aspect of the resume to a greater degree. Additionally, FT applicants are often expected to bring relevant experience to the table given the opportunity juniors have to land SA and other internship opportunities. Tackling the ranking list for FT recruiting you’ll notice that a few categories moved, although most is still the same: most important are both work experience and school brand (as opposed to just school brand for SA slots given the lack of available professional experience), followed by GPA, then leadership and extracurricular experience as a standalone, and, finally, relevant coursework rounds out the list.

As mentioned above, for FT recruiting, unlike SA recruiting, bankers would not be surprised by some strong work experience and will look for it when assessing your candidacy. No, work experience will not offset everything else, but it is definitely one of the two most important aspects of your candidacy regarding FT recruitment. The other, just as before, is your school brand. I know; all of the non-target applicants out there are wondering whether they will ever get away from school pedigree and, unfortunately, the short answer is no. Will school brand make a huge difference ten years down the line, no, but remember, conversation and fit will always play a role and a great opening talking point with someone in a business meeting, interview, etc, is always, “hey! I didn’t know that you graduated from Harvard, what class were you?” or something like that – common points of importance and/or interest are always helpful and useful. Anyway, I got sidetracked for a second, so let’s get back to it. For FT recruiting, strong IB work experience can definitely help to offset a poor school brand, a strong school brand can offset lackluster work experience, and, finally, a strong school brand plus IB work experience makes for one hell of a strong candidate. In other words, because the opportunities for SA and internship positions are there for juniors, FT recruiters will look for these aspects on your resume and are ready to give credit where credit is due. In short, FT recruiting really looks for that balanced resume, and those will the balance of work experience and school brand have the best chances (although that should be pretty obvious). The big difference here is that although FT recruiting is still heavily about school brand it is also about work experience, and when something can be weighted about as heavily as school brand for IB, it is worth mentioning and analyzing.

Moving right along, coming in just behind work experience and school brand is, again, the applicant’s cumulative GPA. The same GPA rankings, requirements, and preferences still hold true as for SA positions, and, as always, you should try to keep your GPA as high as possible and finish with a strong GPA – in other words, don’t let it plummet. If you need a bit more on GPA, make your way HERE. Beyond the basics we’ve already covered, GPA is that hard number that bankers look to, just as we’ve discussed for SA positions, when assessing your ability to handle the workload and manage the analytical requirements of the job. A strong GPA can only help you both for FT recruiting and down the line if you plan to transition to buyside, boutique IB, etc, so don’t let it fall apart on you in the final stretch.

Leadership and EC experience, although fairly far down the list of importance to bankers, still makes a difference and should be played up as much as possible on your resume. Leadership experience for FT recruiting is important to bankers since although analysts won’t generally be in any position to “lead,” bankers still see the qualities necessary to command these positions as important to the position – in other words, being able to analyze situations, voice opinions, lead teams, communicate effectively, hold yourself to a high level of expectation, etc. Bankers see themselves as Type A, for the most part, and, as such, want to believe that leaders are good bankers (unfortunately many true leaders would highly disagree). Furthermore, just as with SA recruiting, leadership experience in professional clubs will often open doors in terms of networking events and expanding your contact base. EC experience in general, although not as impressive as leadership experience, can still be helpful as it provides both points of interest to your candidacy (shows that you are more than just a GPA and school), and talking points during your interview – think of the sports example I used from before. Playing collegiate sports, volunteering with an organization you are interested in, etc are all talking points and really help the reviewer, and, eventually, interviewer, find out who you are and whether he/she would be able to and, ideally, want to work with you.

Finally, we come to relevant coursework. Although it is ranked lowest for both SA and FT recruiting efforts in terms of resume importance, I still believe that it is worth mentioning as it can definitely help your candidacy, especially with small boutiques. Just as with the SA recruiting efforts, the FT recruiters will generally not put much importance on relevant coursework and knowledge base. Again, small boutiques, especially small no-name shops, might put much more emphasis on this category, especially on the FT level for the same reasons as listed above, and for the simple reason that an intern in these shops might be given a lot of busy work, while FT analysts will definitely be given real projects and experience (even if mixed with some HR work) Again, for relevant coursework, especially for FT recruiting, don’t bother with any introductory courses, excluding introductory accounting and finance courses. For FT recruiting especially, I would really look towards advanced coursework in all fields including finance and accounting, since it will be expected of you if you list this highlight on your resume.

If you have any questions regarding this article, any others or in general, feel free, as always, to drop me an email HERE. Comments go below – you know the drill.

What really constitutes a bad GPA?

Let’s cut right to it. A GPA of 3.4 or better is not, by any means, a bad GPA, and while many ill-informed people will try to tell you that you need a 3.8 or better to break into banking, they are absolutely wrong. There is no hard cutoff greater than a 3.4 to eliminate students across the board. Therefore, while you should certainly shoot for more than a 3.4 cumulative GPA, having a 3.4+ cumulative GPA is definitely strong, and will not keep you out of banking by itself. For more on the stronger GPA ranges as well as other GPA issues, click here.

Getting beyond the strong GPAs, let’s get into those that are not so strong. A GPA in the range of 3.2 to 3.4 is often thought of as bad, inexcusable, and hopeless in terms of breaking into investment. While a GPA in this range is definitely less than ideal, it is definitely not hopeless, and is not a terrible GPA by any means. Coupling a GPA in this range with a difficult major, some strong leadership experience, some networking, or some internship experience will definitely help to take the focus off your GPA and put your right back into IB opportunity contention. If you have the opportunity, I would absolutely recommend that you boost your GPA and get it as close to the 3.4+ as possible, but if not, even the strictest of cutoff points for IB is generally around a 3.3, and most of you in this range will fall at that level or above it (especially if rounding to 1 decimal place), so focus on the rest of your resume in addition to boosting your GPA and make the most of it.

Next we end up in the first category that I would actually consider bad – the 3.0 to 3.2 category. This category is the first category that is essentially eliminated from the applicant pool of many IB opportunities given the minimum GPA requirement of a 3.3, or even 3.2. Furthermore, applicants falling in this range of GPAs will have a tough time selling their candidacy to small boutiques, since these shops often rely on GPA as a bellwether of aptitude and ability to handle the workload and analytical demands of the job. Getting past the negative of the GPA, hope is not lost here in that there are still many firms that do not have hard cutoff points for cumulative GPA, and while the rest of your resume will be heavily scrutinized, if evaluated, you still have the opportunity to utilize some of the tips to break in, in spite of a weak GPA. Even with a GPA of this range, you are still in contention and can still show the cumulative GPA on your resume. Assuming you have a strong major GPA and have taken several upper level courses in your major, this supplemental GPA can definitely help to offset a weak cumulative GPA. While I would definitely focus on bringing the GPA up if in this range and make it a priority, if possible, I would not lose sight of the other aspects of my resume, and make sure to keep my major GPA as high as possible.

Finally, we come to the range that is truly cause for concern – GPAs below 3.0. When your cumulative GPA is below a 3.0, you need to absolutely focus on getting it back above a 3.0, even if the studying comes at the expense of other activities – in this case, if you have the opportunity, you want to that GPA above a 3.0 and you want a final, graduating GPA over 3.0. While some will disagree with this next statement, in my opinion, cumulative GPAs under 3.0 should be left off the resume. In other words, either display just the major GPA, or no GPA at all – I prefer listing the major GPA alone, but to each his/her own. The reason I suggest this if I see a resume without a cumulative GPA, I will usually assume that the GPA is around, but no higher than a 3.0 and go from there. If, however, I see a GPA of 2.86 or some such thing, in my mind I will have already moved past that candidate. Yes, I know many people will say that without a cumulative GPA they will do the same thing, for others, seeing a strong major GPA is enough to give the rest of the resume a look – however, if the GPA I see is a cumulative GPA of 2.91 or something, I will definitely have a very tough time getting passed it. Furthermore, I know a few friends in IB (yes, full disclosure, they come from target schools), who have cumulative GPAs in the very low 3s, and have decided to leave the cumulative GPA off the resume and display on the major GPA. Bottom line, if you’ve got the opportunity, you need to get that GPA above a 3.0.

Getting around the bad GPA

Now that we’ve pretty much figured out where the bad, decent and good GPAs lie on the scale, let’s go into how to best overcome, or at least try to overcome this one lacking attribute and still land in, or move towards landing in investment banking.

Networking

First, and foremost, networking is always the key to getting over any hurdle. If someone has deep enough connections, as I’m sure you’ve all heard stories, that someone can absolutely land a gig in IB regardless of background, GPA, experience, etc. Now I realize that most of us, myself included, do not have these sorts of connections, however, most of us do have some connections, or have access to a some sort of a network of bankers, whether through family, through friends or through school/alumni. The problem ultimately becomes the applicant’s trepidation to call on them. Yes, reaching out to alumni is often hard enough when you have a 3.8 GPA and attend a target school – it will certainly be more difficult, for many, when they have just a 3.3 GPA and attend a semi- or non-target. That said, you cannot, I repeat, you absolutely cannot talk yourself out of opportunities like that. Do not focus on the negative – instead, reach out to your contacts and build your network. As time moves forward and the relationship continues to remain alive, the comfort level will begin to rise, and the ability to overlook a small bump in the application/resume becomes much easier – result, you just might end up with a resume push/recommendation. To be fair, you may also end up with zero support – then again, if you don’t reach out at all, you will definitely end up with zero support. Don’t let fear and one dark mark on your resume keep you from pursuing your interests – I’ve seen analysts with a great many GPAs from a great many schools break in – don’t think that a lackluster GPA is going to shut every door.

Getting the grades up

This goes without saying, even though I’ve said it a few times already, but if you are still in school, you need to absolutely work towards getting your grades up – at least above a 3.3. While there are courses that you will want to take, and courses that you will have to take, for your major, for example, you should also look towards taking a few courses that are definitely easy “As.” No, you won’t be showcasing them on your resume as relevant coursework on your resume, but you will be using them to boost your GPA and, ideally, start to bring it up to levels that look much more attractive to both recruiters and bankers. Besides taking some easy courses, you will need to buckle down and focus. I know as students enter their senior year they often want to slack off and let the grades slip a bit – don’t – just don’t. Not only will you need to GPA to be as high as possible for FT IB recruiting, you will also need that high level when it comes to either pursue B school, or make a move to a boutique, P/E shop, or other buyside/corp position – all of these options will definitely check your GPA and will definitely put at least some weight on it. Therefore, don’t lose focus, or, if you already have, get it back and get it back fast – ge those grades and give yourself one less thing to worry about both now and a few years down the line.

Focusing on the major GPA

As I mentioned before, for really bad GPAs (less than 3.0), leave off the cumulative and focus on the major GPA. At the very least you should have a major GPA that is pretty solid – if not, you will definitely have a tougher time – especially if your major is applicable to IB – such as finance, accounting, math, etc. Additionally, even if you have a decent GPA – assume over a 3.0, but under a 3.2-3.3 – you should consider swapping the order of appearance for your GPAs. In other words, lead off with your major GPA, and then follow up with the cumulative GPA. Yes, it sounds like something insignificant and silly, but remember, bankers take very quick glances at these resumes, and seeing a 3.6 major GPA and then a lower cumulative GPA, is definitely more pleasant on the eyes than seeing a 3.2 cumulative GPA and then something higher for a major GPA. Always lead off with the best stuff – whether we are talking about work experience bullet points, GPAs, honors and awards, etc – since there is at least a chance that the first bullet or so is all that will be seen, or at least computed.

Punching up your experiences

Finally, work on punching up your experiences. In this case I am referring to both the language that you use in your bullet points to describe your experiences, as well as the quality and quantity of actually experiences/positions in your resume. Yes, I know that it could very well be a circular argument in that a bad GPA can keep you from getting internships/other opportunities, which will keep you from putting more stuff on your resume, which will keep you from offsetting the bad GPA, blah, blah, blah. Again, don’t focus on the negative – yes all of that might be true – however, you may very well find some opportunities despite your weaker GPA. Look to club involvement and non-profit work – specifically any leadership/officer (in the case of clubs) opportunities that you can harness to show that there is far more to your candidacy than 2-decimal point number no greater than 4.00. Beyond that, look towards taking relevant coursework such as accounting and finance courses – again, maintain that strong major GPA – and you can begin to look towards boutique opportunities and other opportunities perhaps outside of IB, but are at least relevant or applicable to IB. Remember, it won’t be easy, but no one ever said it had to be. Keep your head in the game, and keep your eyes open.

That about covers it – stay tuned for future posts on Getting your Foot in the Door, What an Analyst Really Does, and much more! Like what you’re reading let me know with a comment below or an email here! Have any follow up questions – follow the same rules as above – comments below, emails here!

GPA Rounding – How, When and Does it Matter?

A growing number of eager and hopeful applicants have asked me about the general rule of thumb when it comes to rounding your GPA on your resume. Can they round to 1 decimal, how about 2; do they have to go all the way out to 3 decimals on their resume? In short, it doesn’t really matter all that much. When it comes to your GPA bankers are looking for those target ranges, not a specific number – the over 3.0 crowd, the over 3.3, but less than 3.5 crowd, 3.5 to 3.7(maybe 3.8) and then north of 3.8. Generally speaking, the 3.0 to 3.3 crowd is usually the toughest sell as many employers have GPA cutoffs, which could be as high as 3.3. For this reason, it is important to display your GPA as close as you can to a 3.3 (without fudging the numbers too much, of course).

Once you are over the 3.3 hurdle, the difference (as it pertains to the opinions of resume reviewers) is pretty negligible until you hit the 3.5ish zone. In this range, you are over the requirement (if there are any) and have a solid GPA – just nothing terribly impressive (of course your major also plays a factor, but this will follow in the next article). After you break through the 3.5 or so figure, it all looks the same until you hit a 3.7-3.8. Anything above a 3.5 is definitely in the ballpark and is quite an impressive GPA – no one would scoff at it, and no one would be turning you down simply because “it’s not a 4.0.” Beyond the 3.7-3.8 you reach the cream of the crop in terms of GPA, the 3.8-4.0 kids – the overachievers; those who have it, on paper, and are proud to boast it (or at least should be). Does a 3.9 GPA tell the reviewer that you will be a rockstar on the desk – absolutely not – but it tells him/her that intellectually speaking, you should be good to go (again, different majors will carry different weights).

So after all of this explanation and rankings and ranges, does it really matter – not a whole lot. In reality, once you are above a company’s cutoff mark for GPA, the rest of just gravy (very good, but not essential). A student with a 3.4 GPA, another with a 3.63 GPA and a third with a 3.92 GPA should all have the same opportunities to shine in terms of the resume reviewer giving his/her resume a good look, and fair judgment in terms of interviewing. The question now becomes: so why worry about rounding your GPA, or trying to inflate it a bit through rounding in the first place? The answer comes in 2 parts: 1) you never know which reviewer will actually be looking at your resume and although in general a tenth or a few hundredths (after passing the initial review hurdle) isn’t a huge deal, some reviewers are particularly fond of higher GPAs (especially many small boutiques), and 2) students like to really believe their the incremental hundredth of a point or two is going to make all of the different in the world, or even if it only makes a small difference, that small difference is going to be that last little push that gets the stone over the hump of the hill. How valid or realistic point 2 is, is irrelevant, what is relevant is how comfortable students are with their resume, as a whole – meaning every part of their resume ESPECIALLY their GPA since that is generally something very much in their control. Therefore, while a 3.68 vs. a 3.7 might not be much to a reviewer, if the applicant feels much more comfortable and confident with himself and his performance at a 3.7, then that difference becomes very valuable.

After all of this explanation and rambling I nearly forgot the point of the section in the first place – rounding your GPA. Digging into the numbers, it is usually perfectly acceptable to round your GPA to the nearest tenth based on conventional rounding (and sometimes even a bit of unconventional or overzealous rounding). In other words, a 3.41 should remain a 3.41 or round down to a 3.4. A 3.45 becomes a 3.5, a 3.57 becomes a 3.6, a 3.26 becomes a 3.3, a 2.974 becomes a 3.0 and so forth. Simple enough, right?

In terms of exceptions to the rule, the biggest one that comes to mind is regarding the ever-elusive 4.0. Rounding a 3.85 to a 3.9 is perfectly acceptable (in my opinion), but rounding a 3.99 (though I’ve never seen a 3.99 GPA) to a 4.0 is not. I know this may sound a bit weird to many of you, but the reason lies in the meaning behind the 4.0. A 4.0 says that your GPA is perfect – in other words, you have received an A in every class that you have ever taken without exception. Every other GPA can be achieved through multiple combinations (regardless of how few) of As, Bs, Cs, and everything in between, but there is only one way to achieve a 4.0. Therefore, if you have every received a grade that is lower than an A, you cannot possibly have a 4.0 and therefore, cannot round up to a 4.0. Other people may disagree, but for me, rounding to the nearest tenth is perfectly acceptable, except when it comes to rounding up to a 4.0. Therefore, when it comes to students who have a GPA greater than a 3.9, I usually recommend rounding to the nearest hundredth, as opposed to the nearest tenth – unless you don’t mind being dropped down to a 3.9 (or really a 3.85, since a student with a 3.85 GPA can round up to a 3.9).

Regarding other exceptions, I have given the O.K. to students who asked me whether it is alright to round a 3.44 to a 3.5 or a 3.34 to a 3.4. I know that conventional rounding rules don’t apply, but generally for GPAs, if you round to the nearest tenth, especially for major GPAs (as they aren’t just sitting on your transcript as a cumulative GPA is), fudging the numbers over a hundredth of a point isn’t a terribly big deal. To be candid, I DO NOT recommend rounding up as you see fit (regardless of what rounding rules dictate), but if you are really itching to get into that next tenth and are off by a hundredth of a point or less (as in a 3.346 rounds to a 3.4), then it’s not the worst thing you can do on your resume.

Just as there are the rounding Dos, so too are there the rounding Do Nots. Besides the rounding to a 4.0 Do Not, do not round your GPA to the nearest point, or half point or ever quarter point (yes I was asked this once). In other words, a 3.17 is not a 3.5, not a 4.0 and not a 3.25, it is either a 3.17 or a 3.2. Similarly, a 3.37 is not a 3.5, and a 2.86 is not a 3.0.

In terms of how many decimal places is too many or too few, there are two rules: 1) do not round to 3 decimal places – it is too cluttered – stick to either the nearest tenth or nearest hundredth – if you have a 3.732 it should become a 3.73 – no one will move those 2 thousandths of a point, and 2) how you round for one GPA is how you round for all GPAs. Regarding point 2, I am referring to cumulative GPA and major GPA or cumulative GPAs from different schools, etc. If you round your cumulative GPA to the nearest tenth, your major GPA, other school GPAs, etc should all be rounded to the nearest tenth. If your major GPA is rounded the nearest hundredth, all GPAs are rounded to the nearest hundredth.

Finally, we come to the question of when to use nearest tenth vs. nearest hundredth. Generally speaking, as with everything in the business world (league tables, etc), you should show your GPA to reflect the best possible you in terms of GPA. In other words, if you have a 3.97 GPA, since you shouldn’t round a 4.0, if you round to the tenths place you would go down to a 3.9 – therefore, leave your GPA rounded to the hundredths place. Conversely, a 3.453 would definitely be more attractive as a 3.5 than a 3.45.

If you are displaying a cumulative GPA and a major GPA, then it is a matter of displaying both of them in the best possible light while keeping in mind the need for consistency in rounding. If you have a 3.48 cumulative and a 3.37 major – easy decision, round up to the nearest tenth. If you have a 3.67 cumulative and a 3.82 major, then you would be rounding up for cumulative, but down for major – since cumulative GPA trumps major in terms of importance (and losing two hundredths in your major isn’t as bad as gaining a visible tenth in cumulative is good), I would round to the nearest tenth – but this one, and other like it are definitely on the judgment call list.

Selective GPAs

The selective GPA question isn’t as popular as the rounding question, but is still a pretty common one. By selective GPA I am referring to all GPAs outside of cumulative GPA – major GPA, for example. At this point your question should be – well, where’s the question. Since Major GPAs are fine to include on a resume, where is the issue? The issue arises when an applicant begins to take subtle or broad freedoms in crafting and displaying a selective GPA – think of bank league tables as an example – say the leader in M&A is Goldman Sachs – however, if you look at the leader in terms of number of deals closed you get Morgan Stanley – if you look at deals closed outside of deals less than $1 billion dollars you get another bank and, finally, if you look at deals closed less than $1 billion on the West Coast you may get yet another bank. If you manipulate the numbers enough, you can make just about any bank number 1 or any student have a 3.7 GPA or better. Unlike with bank league tables, GPAs should not be so freely manipulated if they are to have any merit or be of any value to your candidacy.

Generally speaking, the only selective GPAs I would approve of are major GPAs – if you have a dual major, for example, you can list each major GPA separately, or a combined dual major GPA. I don’t see the purpose in using a minor GPA since you usually wouldn’t take more than 3 or 4 classes that are specifically geared towards your minor. Another favorite selective GPA category is in truly “selecting” your GPA. In other words, I am often asked “can I write down my major GPA and exclude a few classes that I didn’t’ perform well in for reason X, Y, Z if I put a note in the bottom to let them know?” In short, can an applicant randomly start removing classes from their major or cumulative GPAs for any reason? The answer: no. Do not take classes out of your GPA calculation simply because you didn’t perform well in them – I don’t care what the reason is or what kind of note you include to explain the situation. You cans explain your GPA in the interview or even cover letter if you would like to, but your GPA cannot be manipulated for classes you didn’t do well in – otherwise, everyone can just put down a 3.8 or 3.9 GPA with an asterisk that says, “excludes classes that I scored lower than an A- in, since I 100% that this performance is below my ability as an intellectually outstanding student.”

Stay tuned for a fresh product coming VERY soon, and more articles on picking your college major, networking like a banker, and much more! Comments go below and emails are sent Here!