Requirements for job applications
Was just looking at a graduate employer's website and read this:
"What type of degree do you require?
Candidates will need to demonstrate strong intellectual abilities. This will usually be evidenced by a good academic record up to degree level (Upper / 2:1 or above). Academic achievement is more important to us than the University attended or the course studied."
Surely this last statement is stupid, as academic achievement is indicated by the university attended AND the course studied??! Would they really rather have somebody who gets a first in geography from Oxford Brookes, than somebody who gets a 2.2 in chemistry from Durham??!
Case in point, I'm currently in the selection process for a graduate employer, I did the computer aptitude tests and came out with a score that was 'above average', so was allowed to carry on with the selection process, I go to a top 10 university and do physics, and will most probably be getting a 2.2 (which I put on the application). Another guy, went to Portsmouth and did maths and was on for a 1st, and got a below average score on the aptitude tests, so was not allowed to continue his application.
Is this statement above seriously saying that this employer would rather have a 1st from Portsmouth than a 2.2 from Durham???
"What type of degree do you require?
Candidates will need to demonstrate strong intellectual abilities. This will usually be evidenced by a good academic record up to degree level (Upper / 2:1 or above). Academic achievement is more important to us than the University attended or the course studied."
Surely this last statement is stupid, as academic achievement is indicated by the university attended AND the course studied??! Would they really rather have somebody who gets a first in geography from Oxford Brookes, than somebody who gets a 2.2 in chemistry from Durham??!
Case in point, I'm currently in the selection process for a graduate employer, I did the computer aptitude tests and came out with a score that was 'above average', so was allowed to carry on with the selection process, I go to a top 10 university and do physics, and will most probably be getting a 2.2 (which I put on the application). Another guy, went to Portsmouth and did maths and was on for a 1st, and got a below average score on the aptitude tests, so was not allowed to continue his application.
Is this statement above seriously saying that this employer would rather have a 1st from Portsmouth than a 2.2 from Durham???
(edited 12 years ago)
By the sound of it, yes that is what they are saying.
Most graduate job schemes will have a 2.1 cut off for applications.
Most graduate job schemes will have a 2.1 cut off for applications.
Original post by Historophilia
By the sound of it, yes that is what they are saying.
Most graduate job schemes will have a 2.1 cut off for applications.
Most graduate job schemes will have a 2.1 cut off for applications.
Is that not a bit stupid seeing as somebody who gets a 2.2 in physics from Durham is fairly likely more intelligent than somebody who gets a 2.1 in geography from Brookes? (for example)
Depends, the odds are if they're a big firm they automatically filter using a computer system, but then again they probably also filter automatically on the test scores so both of you would be unlikely to get through. They may also filter on A Level results so if those are the reason he's at Portsmouth to begin with he won't get through that.
Sadly they have enough candidates with 2:1s or better from a good unis that they can apply automatic filters such as that. A law grad recruiter told me that he has no doubt that they lose several excellent candidates a year due to their automatic filters, but there are so many good candidates who do meet the requirements the extra cost of unearthing the few who are excellent but don't get through just isn't worth it.
Sadly they have enough candidates with 2:1s or better from a good unis that they can apply automatic filters such as that. A law grad recruiter told me that he has no doubt that they lose several excellent candidates a year due to their automatic filters, but there are so many good candidates who do meet the requirements the extra cost of unearthing the few who are excellent but don't get through just isn't worth it.
Original post by j09
Is that not a bit stupid seeing as somebody who gets a 2.2 in physics from Durham is fairly likely more intelligent than somebody who gets a 2.1 in geography from Brookes? (for example)
No offence but if you really are that intelligent surely you should be getting a 2.1.
Don't moan because you didn't put in the hardwork and other people did.
However I'm not quite sure why you're making such a big deal out of it, you have been allowed through to the next round but this other guy wasn't.
Seeing as there are so many different rankings and the main ones I've seen are either research based or student satisfaction based by and large two characteristics not particularly useful to employers.
With so many students getting a 2:1 now chances are they'll have enough applicants of top quality from top universities even if you were to take out the ones with 2:1s from lower universities.
With so many students getting a 2:1 now chances are they'll have enough applicants of top quality from top universities even if you were to take out the ones with 2:1s from lower universities.
Original post by roh
Depends, the odds are if they're a big firm they automatically filter using a computer system, but then again they probably also filter automatically on the test scores so both of you would be unlikely to get through. They may also filter on A Level results so if those are the reason he's at Portsmouth to begin with he won't get through that.
Sadly they have enough candidates with 2:1s or better from a good unis that they can apply automatic filters such as that. A law grad recruiter told me that he has no doubt that they lose several excellent candidates a year due to their automatic filters, but there are so many good candidates who do meet the requirements the extra cost of unearthing the few who are excellent but don't get through just isn't worth it.
Sadly they have enough candidates with 2:1s or better from a good unis that they can apply automatic filters such as that. A law grad recruiter told me that he has no doubt that they lose several excellent candidates a year due to their automatic filters, but there are so many good candidates who do meet the requirements the extra cost of unearthing the few who are excellent but don't get through just isn't worth it.
I suppose that's true. I guess it's a numbers game, after all.
Do you reckon there should be some way of levelling out degree scores from different unis? Similar to UCAS tariff? So for example a 1st from Durham might get you 90 points, and a 1st from Brookes 50, a 2.2 from Durham 60, and a 2.2 from Brookes 30? For example...
Can't you see that the whole education system is one box ticking exercise? Do you really think an employer even knows or cares about how one qualification compares with another?
Can't you see that by making people take endless silly knowledge-based exams for years on end as a child, then making them do IQ-type tests for the role, that years of 'education' is really a money making/beaurocratic exercise?
Both you and the other guy/girl won't be using your degree anyway for a standard 9-5. The answers are staring you in the face, my friend.
Can't you see that by making people take endless silly knowledge-based exams for years on end as a child, then making them do IQ-type tests for the role, that years of 'education' is really a money making/beaurocratic exercise?
Both you and the other guy/girl won't be using your degree anyway for a standard 9-5. The answers are staring you in the face, my friend.
Original post by Davidosh
Seeing as there are so many different rankings and the main ones I've seen are either research based or student satisfaction based by and large two characteristics not particularly useful to employers.
With so many students getting a 2:1 now chances are they'll have enough applicants of top quality from top universities even if you were to take out the ones with 2:1s from lower universities.
With so many students getting a 2:1 now chances are they'll have enough applicants of top quality from top universities even if you were to take out the ones with 2:1s from lower universities.
That's true, I realise league tables aren't the way to base the academic standing of a university, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that the calibre of people graduating from Durham, Bath, Oxbridge even with lower second class degrees will be considerably higher than those graduating from Portsmouth or Swansea even with firsts.
Original post by Physics Enemy
Can't you see that the whole education system is one box ticking exercise? Do you really think an employer even knows or cares about how one qualification compares with another?
Can't you see that by making people take endless silly knowledge-based exams for years on end as a child, then making them do IQ-type tests for the role, that years of 'education' is really a money making/beaurocratic exercise?
Both you and the other guy/girl won't be using your degree anyway for a standard 9-5. The answers are staring you in the face, my friend.
Can't you see that by making people take endless silly knowledge-based exams for years on end as a child, then making them do IQ-type tests for the role, that years of 'education' is really a money making/beaurocratic exercise?
Both you and the other guy/girl won't be using your degree anyway for a standard 9-5. The answers are staring you in the face, my friend.
Interesting take on things.
Original post by j09
Is that not a bit stupid seeing as somebody who gets a 2.2 in physics from Durham is fairly likely more intelligent than somebody who gets a 2.1 in geography from Brookes? (for example)
Degrees don't test 'intelligence', nor do they claim to. It's not about this airy fairy concept. Who's more intelligent, the person who knows the system, gets a 2.1 from Brookes, then get's a grad role; or you/me sat at home unemployed with a 2.2 in Physics?
Original post by j09
I suppose that's true. I guess it's a numbers game, after all.
Do you reckon there should be some way of levelling out degree scores from different unis? Similar to UCAS tariff? So for example a 1st from Durham might get you 90 points, and a 1st from Brookes 50, a 2.2 from Durham 60, and a 2.2 from Brookes 30? For example...
Do you reckon there should be some way of levelling out degree scores from different unis? Similar to UCAS tariff? So for example a 1st from Durham might get you 90 points, and a 1st from Brookes 50, a 2.2 from Durham 60, and a 2.2 from Brookes 30? For example...
I don't know about other sectors but imagine they operate similarly. Law firms do favour certain unis, but they get to this by enforcing A level standards of AAB (on average) with the knowledge that the vast majority of students who got AAB at A level have been to a top 20 or so ranked uni. The 2:1 requirement then gets rid of all those who they feel have underperformed academically at university. After this they (and most recruiters I imagine) are still left with a lot of applicants to whittle down. If someone has, for family reasons or whatever, gone to a uni nearer to home which may not be that great but has AAA at A level they wouldn't be cut out, but how many people do you know who got AAB and didn't go to somewhere in the RG or 1994? So, no they wouldn't equalise it as they require both the uni (which comes pretty much default from the A levels) and the 2:1.
There's no need for equalising of degrees because even with these requirements they still have far too many applicants to interview, hence all the 'describe a time you worked in a team' stuff to allow them to pick out the people who combine personality with academics.
I don't know if this may not be the case for jobs which specifically require physicists as they obviously have a narrower field from which to choose.
(edited 12 years ago)
Is TSR starting to realise that some employers don't care about university reputation? My god.
Yes they'd prefer the candidate with a 2.1, obviously. They have no idea how the unis match up against each other so cannot make an informed judgment based on sketchy league table results which change every year.
Yes they'd prefer the candidate with a 2.1, obviously. They have no idea how the unis match up against each other so cannot make an informed judgment based on sketchy league table results which change every year.
Shock horror. Graduate employer asks for a 2:1 or above from and doesn't disciminate against graduates from certain universities, instead realising that it's likely most students will be of a comparable standard and their own admissions tests and interviews provide a more suitable method of selecting candidates! It's not new.
In the last academic year, 25% of Durham chemistry graduates left with a first and 43% with a 2:1. Although this is a lower percentage than Natural Sciences, Physics and Mathematical Sciences, 68% is still a majority of students. If a student didn't achieve a 2:1 or above then it's likely he/she is not as capable, or didn't work as hard as, a student who did (especially compared to a student who achieved a first, whether from a pre-1992 university or not). Obviously mitigating circumstances have an effect but these should be taken into account and the student compensated appropriately.
I'm not even going to get into the "intelligene" aspect, and ignore that you're attempting to compare graduates of different academic disciplines, presumably thinking geography is easier.
You're making assumptions. It will only make an ass of you.
Original post by j09
Is that not a bit stupid seeing as somebody who gets a 2.2 in physics from Durham is fairly likely more intelligent than somebody who gets a 2.1 in geography from Brookes? (for example)
In the last academic year, 25% of Durham chemistry graduates left with a first and 43% with a 2:1. Although this is a lower percentage than Natural Sciences, Physics and Mathematical Sciences, 68% is still a majority of students. If a student didn't achieve a 2:1 or above then it's likely he/she is not as capable, or didn't work as hard as, a student who did (especially compared to a student who achieved a first, whether from a pre-1992 university or not). Obviously mitigating circumstances have an effect but these should be taken into account and the student compensated appropriately.
I'm not even going to get into the "intelligene" aspect, and ignore that you're attempting to compare graduates of different academic disciplines, presumably thinking geography is easier.
Original post by j09
That's true, I realise league tables aren't the way to base the academic standing of a university, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that the calibre of people graduating from Durham, Bath, Oxbridge even with lower second class degrees will be considerably higher than those graduating from Portsmouth or Swansea even with firsts.
You're making assumptions. It will only make an ass of you.
River85 is spot on. It's funny how clueless students are; I was the most clueless one of all though. Physics is lots of rote learning, moderate level Maths and often jumping mark scheme hoops (moreso A-Level).
Academics has nothing to do with "intelligence" or whatever sad, ego-filled concept that is. It's technique, hard work and playing the system.
Intelligent people make big money, invent things, solve hard problems and don't post on TSR analysing what a piece of paper implies about themselves.
'Clever' people play the system they're in, make the most of it and prosper. Most grads ultimately don't get good roles, that's the reality.
Academics has nothing to do with "intelligence" or whatever sad, ego-filled concept that is. It's technique, hard work and playing the system.
Intelligent people make big money, invent things, solve hard problems and don't post on TSR analysing what a piece of paper implies about themselves.
'Clever' people play the system they're in, make the most of it and prosper. Most grads ultimately don't get good roles, that's the reality.
(edited 12 years ago)
Unfortunately securing good grades alone does not necessarily get you the dream job.
Contacts is probably the safest way to ensure you get there.
It is also true that what constitutes doing a good job does not always mean that. Having good relationships, especially with your manager can sometimes be more beneficial than getting on with your job and doing overtime to get things completed.
Sad (and unfair) but true.
Contacts is probably the safest way to ensure you get there.
It is also true that what constitutes doing a good job does not always mean that. Having good relationships, especially with your manager can sometimes be more beneficial than getting on with your job and doing overtime to get things completed.
Sad (and unfair) but true.
I think the 'firm' you looked at will explain why. The government doesn't want to be seen as elitist, just as HMRC accept 2:2s.
https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/working-for-us/careers-faqs.html
MI6.
https://www.sis.gov.uk/careers/working-for-us/careers-faqs.html
MI6.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I am the biggest ****** in the world, please remind me ocassionally in case I forget
- Work experience
- Applying for a 2:1 job with a 2:2 degree
- Job applications
- No finance/business related work experience for kcl application
- Should I choose sociology or History for A level
- Losing hope on graduate scheme apps
- Can't Find a Graduate Job
- can I get into law with a social science degree?
- Leaving data grad job to allow time/flexibility for September grad schemes
- Summer part time jobs
- I can't get a job
- should i change colleges and retake year 12
- Civil Service pre-employment checks failed
- How competitive is vet nursing course?
- Clearing and Apprenticeship
- ATAS Certificate Application for Researchers
- Why is it so hard to find part-time jobs for the summer?
- uni new course
- Rejected from all graduate applications, what do I do now?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
