Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

If you were an employer, would you rather hire a 27 year old woman who graduated from undergrad with a 2.3 GPA and has 5 years of experience?

Or a 27 year old woman who just graduated with a 3.8 GPA, but who has never had a job in her life?

Answer Question

Asked by rital38 at 11:23 AM on Jul. 5, 2010 in Money & Work

Level 5 (85 Credits)
Answers (12)
  • The one with 5 years experience

    Answer by ladybug0614 at 11:26 AM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • I'm going with experience. The g.p.a.'s mean nothing once you walk the line and get the degree. It's the experience and attitude that matters more.

    Answer by Kiwismommy19 at 11:27 AM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • If I were an employer I most likely would take the experience over the GPA. GPA doesn't always mean everything. I had lots of brilliant friends in college who had low GPAs for many different reasons, personal or they were just overloaded with work and other extra-curricular activities.

    Answer by moniquinha at 11:27 AM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • undergrad, grads can be trained to specifications, were people with experience usually will require more pay(not good for meas employer) and also will have preconceptions about a job.if hes an undergrad hes bound to be smart enough to learn a job for smaller pay.


    Answer by IraqiVetWife at 11:48 AM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • We are an employer. It all would depend on that persons interview. And how they handle themselves. I would probably go with the one with experience. We don't actually care about school at all here. It matter if they are reliable and can do the job, and do it WELL. Nevering having a job before kinda makes me think that they might not be the best worker, because they won't know how to handle themselves in a work place environment.

    Answer by Ezranight at 12:06 PM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • My husbands said he would take the person with the higher GPA and no work experience. All new management go through the same training no matter how much experience so a person who worked harder in college will be looked upon in a more favorable light.

    Answer by momtolucas2002 at 12:20 PM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • lol there we go again, how do you get a job if no one ever gives you job, hilarious. Oh and volunteering is not a job, you dont get paid.

    Answer by IraqiVetWife at 12:56 PM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • If someone has five years of experience, I would not consider GPA at all.

    In general, when considering two candidates with similar skills and experience, I hire the one who would be the best cultural fit.

    Answer by rkoloms at 1:46 PM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • I would hire the person that would mesh well with the company. Having said that there are advantages to hiring someone with no bad work habits, lol. You train them the way you want them to be and they don't continuously say 'at my old job we did it 'this' way'.

    Answer by slw123 at 2:08 PM on Jul. 5, 2010

  • When I made hiring decisions only PART of thier education, past jobs etc had a part in the decision. How well did they know the job they were applying for, are they flexible to learn things they have no experience with or new ways if they were trained by another company or school etc. are they quick thinkers? there is a lot more in to it than you might think.

    Answer by sati769leigh at 4:43 PM on Jul. 5, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.