[SavantIdiot]

That's not true at all. When someone drops 200 resumes on your desk and says, "Find 10 candidates to interview by tomorrow", you need some initial sort criteria.

The truth, my criteria were: #1: university, #2: GPA, #3: keywords. Sure, I was bitten a few times (I hired an MIT master's student who was utterly helpless), but over the course of years doing this, some patterns emerge, and high-GPA absolutely correlates with good candidates.

Sure, there might be a 2.0/4.0 who is a whiz, but sorry charlie, I'm not gonna picky your resume, so apply yourself or start your own company, because a low GPA means you don't give a shit or have some other problem.

[MontyCarloHall]

I agree that GPA is useful as a binary indicator—if it’s abominably low, like a 2.0 in your example, it’s a red flag. But a 4.0 is no more predictive of being a good hire than, say, a 3.3. It’s also very school-dependent. Some places inflate grades a lot more than others.

In my own anecdotal experience, I omitted my GPA entirely from my CV when looking for jobs straight out of college and got interviews at every single place I applied. It’s not nearly as important as a lot of people think.

[SavantIdiot]

> But a 4.0 is no more predictive of being a good hire than, say, a 3.3

Ironically I graduated with a 3.4, and I did feel guilty for not passing on resumes with GPAs as low as mine. But as I said, when I had many other tasks to do for work, and then had to stop them all to sort resumes (we all took turns), it was hard to justify excursions when there were so many 4.0s. It is a sad truth that new college grads almost all look the same on paper...