That definitely is interesting. My own experience was that I graduated with a 3.2 and a couple years working for the university in IT and programming positions. My job search began in October 2000 (i.e., the dot com boom was still in full swing and the bubble had not yet burst). I felt confident that I would do well if I got an interview, but I couldn't get one. The one company (a small consulting firm) that did give me an interview offered me the job.
As it turned out, I had a friend that worked for a major tech company, one whose recruiters wouldn't give me an interview. My friend passed my resume on to his manager, and I was invited for an onsite interview with tech people. I got the job and started in May 2001.
Moral of the story (by my experience): Maintain a high GPA, because you'll most likely have to deal with HR recruiters that use it as a filter. But if you have friends or other inside connections, make use of them. Sometimes, it's not what you know, but who you know. Even in tech.
I agree with almost everything in the parent post word for word, but with one major exception. Do NOT, under any circumstance, neglect your GPA. When you are applying for jobs, the first people you encounter are HR types that don't know the subtle details of published research. I.e., they wouldn't understand the difference between being co-author of a paper that appears in Science versus one that appears in some third-rate workshop.
What many of these HR types look at as a first criterion for consideration is your GPA. When they run their filter on GPAs, a 2.3 will get you disqualified before they ever see your list of 15 publications. Many recruiters (though not all) will, by corporate policy, automatically discard the resume of any student whose GPA is below a 3.5 without a moment's hesitation. Because, chances are, they will probably be able to find a student with a 3.5+ GPA and a publication or two.
So, yes, do research. Show your initiative. Work on interesting and innovative projects. But do not let your GPA go down the toilet in the process.
First, to suggest that Firefox is "unproven" is a bit disingenuous. According to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/firefox-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&sample=28, Firefox's market share is now over 20% (compared with IE's 67%). That's far from a trivial number of users, and I'm sure there are plenty of bad guys out there taking aim at Firefox. But that's all flame war garbage and irrelevant to the current discussion.
The problem is that you have a governmental organization making a vague, unqualified statement that is completely unnecessary. The site's policy should state, "At this time, we only support IE version 6 and above." There is absolutely no justification for stating that, "Mozilla based, non-IE browsers pose a security risk." (What about non-Mozilla-based non-IE browsers?) The fact of the matter is that any piece of software that interfaces with untrusted servers (that includes ALL web browsers) is bound to pose a security risk. To suggest that IE does not propose a security risk (which is implied by the FAQ statement) is intentionally misleading. And THAT is the cause for the uproar.
Slashdot Mirror
But that doesn't mean Stevens wasn't corrupt enough to deserve not to get re-elected[...]
Wow. Umm, I don't know if I shouldn't not disagree with the falsity of the negation.
That definitely is interesting. My own experience was that I graduated with a 3.2 and a couple years working for the university in IT and programming positions. My job search began in October 2000 (i.e., the dot com boom was still in full swing and the bubble had not yet burst). I felt confident that I would do well if I got an interview, but I couldn't get one. The one company (a small consulting firm) that did give me an interview offered me the job.
As it turned out, I had a friend that worked for a major tech company, one whose recruiters wouldn't give me an interview. My friend passed my resume on to his manager, and I was invited for an onsite interview with tech people. I got the job and started in May 2001.
Moral of the story (by my experience): Maintain a high GPA, because you'll most likely have to deal with HR recruiters that use it as a filter. But if you have friends or other inside connections, make use of them. Sometimes, it's not what you know, but who you know. Even in tech.
I agree with almost everything in the parent post word for word, but with one major exception. Do NOT, under any circumstance, neglect your GPA. When you are applying for jobs, the first people you encounter are HR types that don't know the subtle details of published research. I.e., they wouldn't understand the difference between being co-author of a paper that appears in Science versus one that appears in some third-rate workshop.
What many of these HR types look at as a first criterion for consideration is your GPA. When they run their filter on GPAs, a 2.3 will get you disqualified before they ever see your list of 15 publications. Many recruiters (though not all) will, by corporate policy, automatically discard the resume of any student whose GPA is below a 3.5 without a moment's hesitation. Because, chances are, they will probably be able to find a student with a 3.5+ GPA and a publication or two.
So, yes, do research. Show your initiative. Work on interesting and innovative projects. But do not let your GPA go down the toilet in the process.
I meant, "To suggest that IE does not POSE a security risk is intentionally misleading." Dang typos...
First, to suggest that Firefox is "unproven" is a bit disingenuous. According to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/firefox-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&sample=28, Firefox's market share is now over 20% (compared with IE's 67%). That's far from a trivial number of users, and I'm sure there are plenty of bad guys out there taking aim at Firefox. But that's all flame war garbage and irrelevant to the current discussion.
The problem is that you have a governmental organization making a vague, unqualified statement that is completely unnecessary. The site's policy should state, "At this time, we only support IE version 6 and above." There is absolutely no justification for stating that, "Mozilla based, non-IE browsers pose a security risk." (What about non-Mozilla-based non-IE browsers?) The fact of the matter is that any piece of software that interfaces with untrusted servers (that includes ALL web browsers) is bound to pose a security risk. To suggest that IE does not propose a security risk (which is implied by the FAQ statement) is intentionally misleading. And THAT is the cause for the uproar.