Emphasis on GPA

[nu8reed]

Hi all,
I was wondering if someone out there could help me with my conundrum. I am considering a career in the actuarial field but was wondering if a low gpa would prevent me from finding an entry level job. Basically my question is if I had one or two exams completed w/ gpa in the high 2's, would anyone hire me? Should I not even bother sitting for the exam this spring?
Any help or insights would be appreciated.

[c3 taker]

I think at most companies they "require" a 3.0 GPA with a major in an actuarially (if that's a word) related major. With two exams passed, I would think they may loosen that restriction. I think it would be very important for you to pass the second exam. It would show potential employers that even though your GPA is a bit lower than other candidates they may have seen, you have a strong work ethic and will to suceed in the actuarial path.

JMO

:)

[DW Simpson]

Basically my question is if I had one or two exams completed w/ gpa in the high 2's, would anyone hire me?

It's more difficult, but yes.

Some good advice was given here: http://www.actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=9950

and here was my response:

Right now, we have exactly 1 candidate interviewing for entry level positions with a GPA below 3.0. Every other candidate that we're working with that has received an entry level interview in January has a GPA greater than 3.0. In my experience, that's not an anomaly.

Even though employers stress the importance of exams, they still have that 3.0 demarcation line in mind. In order of importance --

- I would get at least 1 if not two exams. You said you'll have 2, I don't know if that means you have already passed two.

- After that, I would do everything you can to get your GPA above 3.0. Or, as Westley said, at least have a strong last 2 years' and major GPA, and put that in a place of prominence on your resume.

- Only after those steps would I worry about passing a third or fourth exam. If employers can choose between a 2-exam student with a greater than 3.0 GPA, or a 3- or 4-exam student with a 2.7 GPA, they often will choose the 2-examer.

[Maine-iac]

I generally agree with the above comments.

It will be more difficult to get an entry level position with a GPA below 3.0, but if you have 2 exams, it is not impossible.

And keep in mind, that once you do land an entry level position, if you do well and keep your exam progress steady, your GPA will become trivial.

Exam progress trumps almost everything (except major on-the-job screw-ups).

[1SQ]

I believe the saying goes, "all is forgiven if you pass your exams". Don't take it literally but you get the idea. If this is what you really want to do, then your sub 3.0 GPA is not the end of the world. You have to make up for it by showing employers something you have that others don't...2 exams is a big plus. Or perhaps go to graduate school for an MBA while still attempting exams. Probably the most important, is once you're called for an interview, that's what will determine whether or not you get an offer. Candidates with very good credentials flame out at the interview while others shine. You impress people with your enthusiasm and character, the GPA thing will take on much less importance.

[Arlie_Proctor]

I would tend to agree with ISQ, but you have to get your foot in the door. Many companies send resumes directly to the trash if the GPA is not above 3.0. I worked for one company whose standard was 3.5 and a degree from a tier one or two school. If your GPA is low, you're going to have to be able to show significant exam progress that allows you to leave the GPA off of your resume. Without a couple of exams, a resume with a low GPA or no GPA will get you a polite "thanks but no thanks" form letter.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

And there are plenty of companies without such high GPA restrictions.

Just have to look for them. Each exam should be worth about 0.25 GPA. I just made that number up, on short notice.

Experts, feel free to comment on a more justifiable amount for X, such that:
{ candidate GPA + (number of exams * X) > company GPA standard }

means the candidate won't get automatically rejected.

Yeah, a simple arithmetic function. How boring.

[rsm1978]

GPA doesn't mean squat if you have exams. I went to a very good 4 year school and skated with a mathematical science major. My GPA wound up right around 3.0, but I had 2 exams and an internship under my belt and I had offers all over the place. That was only 3 yrs ago, so I'm sure you'll be fine. In fact, I don't recall ever being asked about a GPA - all interview topics were about exams and what I learned on my internship.

[Anon67]

GPA means nothing if you have passed exams. Both the companies I have worked for (one big consulting, one small insurance company) do not request applicants to submit their transcripts at all. We do do a check with the college to see if you've actually graduated (due to people lying in the past about their educational background).

Although it does depend on the person interviewing.

[42]

DTNF's formula seems pretty good to me - for every exam you passed, we'd probably be willing to accept a GPA that was 0.25 less.
(Darn - I hate agreeing with DTNF! It goes against the natural order of the cosmose. :wink: )

[paranoid]

If you have two exams from a non-actuarial background, that is going to be a plus, as it shows a pretty high level of commitment. I think for the companies that don't have hard and fast rules, you will be in good shape. I would have an answer in case someone asks about it in an interview situation, though.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

You know you like it. Even if it does make you spell funny.

[mayreeh]

I think that generally speaking, too many exams straight out of college is a negative. I'm not big on paying the higher money to someone with no experience, but if you have a lower GPA, extra exams would show the interest in the field and dedication to studying that it takes to be successful.

Be prepared to answer questions about the GPA. Maybe even leave it off of the resume??? Or just put in your major GPA (assuming it is higher) or the GPA from the last two years (again, assuming it is higher).

Finally, if you have real life work experience or internships - play it up. Based on my experience, I would give a bonus to anyone coming in with real work experience and 2 exams over someone who just had a high GPA.

[42]

I'm never in favor of "leaving out" important information from the resume, but I would agree with leaving out the GPA because I don't consider it to be critical. Exams are more important. You can always tell an interviewer your GPA if they ask, but it also gives you a chance to explain yourself at the same time.

[paranoid]

I'm never in favor of "leaving out" important information from the resume, but I would agree with leaving out the GPA because I don't consider it to be critical. Exams are more important. You can always tell an interviewer your GPA if they ask, but it also gives you a chance to explain yourself at the same time.

I don't think there's anything wrong with this strategy, but it could backfire. If you leave it out, companies might think that the GPA is bad, or at least worse than it really is (I admit it, I'm a pessimist). Which could hurt your chances more than your actual GPA. I agree that it's not that critical of a factor, but for an entry level position, they may not have much else to distinguish candidates from one another on paper.

[42]

I guess I'm basing it on what I see in resumes. Some people include their GPA, some don't. It's not conspicuous by its absence. And this person HAS actuarial exams, which are more important. Without the exams, I would say that the GPA is a MUST on the resume.

[Mary Frances]

First thing I ask for is your transcript, so leaving off your GPA wouldn't do any good in my shop. I not only want to see your GPA, I want to know what you took and why. If your GPA is low, it had better be improving and you'd better be prepared to explain why you did so poorly to start. I'm trying to hire someone who is going to be a fellow, so I need to see real evidence that you stick to things, even if they aren't fun. A couple of exams would go a long way toward offsetting a poor GPA, but only if you've got some other evidence that you've mended your ways and are sticking to it. If you don't get any offers after passing two exams, I'd recommend putting in another year in school and getting A's. Then you can argue that your undergrad years are behind you.

At least in my part of the country, it's a buyers market. We're looking for ways to weed out resumes - far too many to interview everybody.

Sorry if this sounds discouraging.

[42]

I agree with Mary Frances, except that I would say that getting two exams is evidence that you've mended your ways. OTOH, getting just one exam might still be just dumb luck.

[Lucy]

I'm not hiring entry level people these day, so I can't comment on hard-and-fast guidelines, but I can share to following observation. Three years ago the dot-com thing was hot, wall street was hot, and we had trouble finding promising entry-level candidates to interview. All that has changed. There are plenty of applicants now, and you need to look good on paper to get an interview.

[jets fan]

you need to look good on paper to get an interview.

It looks like we're back to the question of what "looking good on paper" means. Ideal = high GPA with a couple exams passed. But who would you choose to interview/hire between a high GPA, no exams candidate and a 2.6 GPA candidate with 3 exams?

[42]

The latter.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

The pointy hairs are dissolving. He's right on two counts:
1. The candidate has shown evidence that she is committed to the profession by taking exams.
2. The candidate has shown evidence that she can pass the exams.

To the top of the pile, it goes.