The great '2:2 will leave you unemployed' rubbish. Do classifications even matter?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Smack
It's all about how well you'd fit into the organisation. It turns out that the 2:2 candidates were better able to demonstrate that they'd fit into the company than the candidates with 1st class degrees. I wouldn't say there was any favouring - in fact degree classification was only mentioned on the offer letter i.e. this offer is conditional of you achieving at least a 2nd class honours degree.
Be honest. Was it an oil refinery?
No I'm joking, you're right of course, a degree classification is far from the most important thing. I'm surprised that 2.2 candidates stood out from 1st candidates though (an individuals absolutely, but as a group I find it surprising), as generally speaking I would have thought 1st students would show greater commitment and work ethic (perhaps misconceived). Was there something about the organisation that made it fit the generic 2.2 candidate over the generic 1st? Very laid back perhaps? Again I may be generalising. Possibly it was just the particular way that crop of student applicants were!
To be clear, I don't have a 1st, I'm just interested is all.
Original post by wanderlust.xx
Having read this, I was not surprised. I have an exam tomorrow but quite frankly having read the comments, why bother?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education?
Having read this, I was not surprised. I have an exam tomorrow but quite frankly having read the comments, why bother?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education?
You're probably in education for the wrong reason if you're asking those questions... and making life choices based on what newspapers say.
Original post by wanderlust.xx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2012/apr/17/what-students-do-if-their-grades-are-low
Having read this, I was not surprised. I have an exam tomorrow but quite frankly having read the comments, why bother?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education? I feel like I've just completely waste 3 years of my life working my butt off for a first/2:1, and I feel like my hard working friends have too.
Why should we have worked hard and gotten a 2:1/first, when we could have quite literally just ****ed about, done no work, enjoyed ourselves for 3 years drinking ourselves stupid into the whee hours of the morning and just studied a day before the exam so we didn't fail?
Why not just do that, if anything above a 2:2 won't help at all towards career success?
I thought that working hard and getting a 2:1 would at the very least make it easier to get a job. Hell, I would have thought that a 2:1 in something as respected as a maths degree might get me a second glance.
Having read this article though, perhaps I should never have bothered.
Having read this, I was not surprised. I have an exam tomorrow but quite frankly having read the comments, why bother?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education? I feel like I've just completely waste 3 years of my life working my butt off for a first/2:1, and I feel like my hard working friends have too.
Why should we have worked hard and gotten a 2:1/first, when we could have quite literally just ****ed about, done no work, enjoyed ourselves for 3 years drinking ourselves stupid into the whee hours of the morning and just studied a day before the exam so we didn't fail?
Why not just do that, if anything above a 2:2 won't help at all towards career success?
I thought that working hard and getting a 2:1 would at the very least make it easier to get a job. Hell, I would have thought that a 2:1 in something as respected as a maths degree might get me a second glance.
Having read this article though, perhaps I should never have bothered.
more likely that the article is a load of crap. I mean the 2.1 auto filter that every company seems to operate on is a big motivator, the cut-off seems to really be at the 2.1 nowadays. (causing some frustration with shall we say less academically rigorous universities - but don't wanna get into that again)
my parents always said 'don't bother trying to get a 1st because it's really hard and just makes you look anti social on your CV'
This pissed me off because I'm pretty set on getting a 1st for career reasons or just personal satisfaction - so I have asked a number of employers in the areas I'm interested in working in and they all said that a 1st would make it stand out and probably get me more interviews and a 2.2 forget it.
I think it's more important in modern times as more and more people get 1st class whereas before 2.2's were more like 50% than down around 15-20%. Old people are still based in the time where a 1st class was mega and 'very good' non freakish people could be pleased with 2.1's
p.s I think it's also a good boost if you want to work in a more nerdy sector like me where extra curricular activities become (quote from staff) 'negligible'
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by iSMark
The one that earns a six digit salary?
He was probably too busy running his own business at the time...
He was probably too busy running his own business at the time...
Right on the first count, wrong on the second. His drive, inter-personal skills and personality simply counted more than his degree classification.
Some employers are looking for more than people who can simply regurgitate memorised information. I mean now we have Google.
Original post by non
cool story bro
thanks bro
Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd
We're in a harsh economic climate at the moment and there are more people graduating with degrees than is strictly necessary. This is what the problem is.
I'm not in a position to be looking for work at the moment but my understanding has been that whilst the kind of jobs I would be looking at would still be open to me, quite a few doors automatically close in your face too.
In any case, it's worth getting a 2.1 or above just for the satisfaction of knowing that you are capable of it and achieved it. Otherwise you probably regret not trying harder or (in my case) are left with a degree that doesn't reflect your abilities. It's very frustrating having a 2.2
I'm not in a position to be looking for work at the moment but my understanding has been that whilst the kind of jobs I would be looking at would still be open to me, quite a few doors automatically close in your face too.
In any case, it's worth getting a 2.1 or above just for the satisfaction of knowing that you are capable of it and achieved it. Otherwise you probably regret not trying harder or (in my case) are left with a degree that doesn't reflect your abilities. It's very frustrating having a 2.2
What is the chance of getting 2:1 for me. I am in my 2nd year of the uni. duing International Business. Untill now out of 12 modules I have got most B , 2 C's and I guess 1 D. More 6 modules are remaining of final year. If I really study hard and get atleast 4 A's . Will my chances improve for getting 2:1 or still the back category of 2:2. Please advice bro.
Thank you
Original post by iSMark
I would prefer a 2.1 from quite a few other universities though. A 2.2 from Oxford wont get you preferential treatment, the Oxford element does start to make some ground up when comparing to a 2.1 candidate from a worse university, but not as much as you're suggesting.
exactly. my 2:2 from Kent would not count the same as a 2:2 from oxford.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd
Maybe back in the day but the Oxbridge name alone doesn't get you far in most jobs these days 
Really? I would have thought that, especially in these days, competition would be even tougher and employers would give even more preferencial treatment to Oxbridge graduates.
Out of interest how did you manage to get in with AAB A levels? Not bashing, just curious
(edited 11 years ago)
I think the correlation isn't so much that people with better degrees do better, it's that smart, clever, intelligent people do better (and they also happen to be more likely to get a better degree). If you want to do well, don't be an idiot. That's more or less it.
Original post by CyclopsRock
I think the correlation isn't so much that people with better degrees do better, it's that smart, clever, intelligent people do better (and they also happen to be more likely to get a better degree). If you want to do well, don't be an idiot. That's more or less it.
And how do you go about not being an idiot?
It would seem to me that working hard and getting a good degree is easier than making yourself more intelligent. Intelligence is at least in part genetic and therefore not something that can be improved on easily.
Original post by johndoranglasgow
You're probably in education for the wrong reason if you're asking those questions... and making life choices based on what newspapers say.
Most people are in education (well, university level education) for the job prospects.
Original post by Tushar9
What is the chance of getting 2:1 for me. I am in my 2nd year of the uni. duing International Business. Untill now out of 12 modules I have got most B , 2 C's and I guess 1 D. More 6 modules are remaining of final year. If I really study hard and get atleast 4 A's . Will my chances improve for getting 2:1 or still the back category of 2:2. Please advice bro.
Thank you
Thank you
Your uni gives ABCD grades? Is it a 'real' university?
How do you think anyone could ever work out what you are on or what your chances are from that?
Original post by MrHappy_J
Really? I would have thought that, especially in these days, competition would be even tougher and employers would give even more preferencial treatment to Oxbridge graduates.
Surely the logical effect would be the exact opposite of this? Employers aren't hard pressed to find top talent, top talent is hard pressed to find jobs.
I'd be happy with a 2:2 at the end of my degree tbh.
I'm definitely not the smartest cookie. I have 3 resits from last semester in August (I'm in 2nd year) I don't know if I have any from this semester, but that's simply because the 3 resits were a bit of a wake up call, something which usually wears off after a year.
I'm hoping to get a placement next year doing something in Botanical Conservation, but the only way I'll get that is through contacts (My dad is the factor of Haddo Estate and knows quite a few people who own other National Trust estates, houses and parks)
I doubt I'll even get enough to do my honours year.
I'm definitely not the smartest cookie. I have 3 resits from last semester in August (I'm in 2nd year) I don't know if I have any from this semester, but that's simply because the 3 resits were a bit of a wake up call, something which usually wears off after a year.
I'm hoping to get a placement next year doing something in Botanical Conservation, but the only way I'll get that is through contacts (My dad is the factor of Haddo Estate and knows quite a few people who own other National Trust estates, houses and parks)
I doubt I'll even get enough to do my honours year.
Original post by wanderlust.xx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2012/apr/17/what-students-do-if-their-grades-are-low
Having read this, I was not surprised. I have an exam tomorrow but quite frankly having read the comments, why bother?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education? I feel like I've just completely waste 3 years of my life working my butt off for a first/2:1, and I feel like my hard working friends have too.
Why should we have worked hard and gotten a 2:1/first, when we could have quite literally just ****ed about, done no work, enjoyed ourselves for 3 years drinking ourselves stupid into the whee hours of the morning and just studied a day before the exam so we didn't fail?
Why not just do that, if anything above a 2:2 won't help at all towards career success?
I thought that working hard and getting a 2:1 would at the very least make it easier to get a job. Hell, I would have thought that a 2:1 in something as respected as a maths degree might get me a second glance.
Having read this article though, perhaps I should never have bothered.
Having read this, I was not surprised. I have an exam tomorrow but quite frankly having read the comments, why bother?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education? I feel like I've just completely waste 3 years of my life working my butt off for a first/2:1, and I feel like my hard working friends have too.
Why should we have worked hard and gotten a 2:1/first, when we could have quite literally just ****ed about, done no work, enjoyed ourselves for 3 years drinking ourselves stupid into the whee hours of the morning and just studied a day before the exam so we didn't fail?
Why not just do that, if anything above a 2:2 won't help at all towards career success?
I thought that working hard and getting a 2:1 would at the very least make it easier to get a job. Hell, I would have thought that a 2:1 in something as respected as a maths degree might get me a second glance.
Having read this article though, perhaps I should never have bothered.
In most cases you will find it easier with a 2.1 in Maths than with a 2.2. in Maths, unless you have a sizeable amount of relevant work experience with the latter classification.
And regards your point about 'drinking yourselves stupid', there's no reason why you can't get a 2.1, then secure a well-paying job and spend your weekends doing precisely that.
Original post by Stefan1991
I know three people who graduated one year from a good uni with very similar degrees.
One got a 2:1, one got a 2:2 and the other got a 3rd.
One earns enough to live from a mid level company and took almost a year to find a job.
One earns quite a good amount, has a company car and works for a blue chip company.
One earns a six digit salary, has their own secretary, a personal limo and a large expenses account.
Guess which one got a 3rd?
One got a 2:1, one got a 2:2 and the other got a 3rd.
One earns enough to live from a mid level company and took almost a year to find a job.
One earns quite a good amount, has a company car and works for a blue chip company.
One earns a six digit salary, has their own secretary, a personal limo and a large expenses account.
Guess which one got a 3rd?
How did he achieve all that with a third?
Just out of interest here... Those of you with 2:2s or lower, what were your grades in first year? Am just wondering whether your grades in first year correlate to those in the final two years because most people I've heard from, their grades increase in years 2 and 3.
I'm wondering, because I've always assumed that seeing as I'm getting mid-high 2:1s and 1:1s in my first year that it would follow that my marks would increase assuming my work ethic also increased (been a bit crap this year, which is why I'm up at the moment finishing a last minute economic history essay haha).
I'm wondering, because I've always assumed that seeing as I'm getting mid-high 2:1s and 1:1s in my first year that it would follow that my marks would increase assuming my work ethic also increased (been a bit crap this year, which is why I'm up at the moment finishing a last minute economic history essay haha).
Original post by Silver Arrow
How did he achieve all that with a third?
Probably had good contacts and used them to his advantage and/or networked really well.
I can't see someone with a third getting in a job of that standing by virtue of his character alone, unless he's a media personality or something. Even then, many media personalties have good degrees from good universities.
Happy to be proved wrong though.
Original post by Aquinas
Just out of interest here... Those of you with 2:2s or lower, what were your grades in first year? Am just wondering whether your grades in first year correlate to those in the final two years because most people I've heard from, their grades increase in years 2 and 3.
I'm wondering, because I've always assumed that seeing as I'm getting mid-high 2:1s and 1:1s in my first year that it would follow that my marks would increase assuming my work ethic also increased (been a bit crap this year, which is why I'm up at the moment finishing a last minute economic history essay haha).
I'm wondering, because I've always assumed that seeing as I'm getting mid-high 2:1s and 1:1s in my first year that it would follow that my marks would increase assuming my work ethic also increased (been a bit crap this year, which is why I'm up at the moment finishing a last minute economic history essay haha).
Well, I don't have a 2.2 but I'll take a crack at this.
First Year - 73%
Second Year - 59%
Final Year - 73% (average to date, about 70% of marks received)
Go figure on that? I've done equally little work every year, so I don't really understand the fluctuations. All I know is final year is worth 3/4 of the degree so I'm not complaining
Education is all about 'signalling', when employers are faced with hundreds or thousands of eager applicants they need a way of getting information on the potential quality of the applicant because they are all going to say the same, 'motivated, team player, leadership skills blah blah'. Further down the application process when they do assessments or interviews etc they can distinguish more between applicants but in the early stages when they only have an application form to go on they will look for signals of quality which is where your education comes in.
You can argue for other reasons for education, personal development etc, but the signalling part - showing you're better than the masses and worth considering further, is a huge reason most people do it especially now they have to drop thousands of pounds to go to university. The major problem with a 2:2 is it loses your signalling value, it is no longer a signal of quality because most students get at least a 2:1, so it says I went to university but was in the lower third of my peers. If you go to Oxbridge and get a 2:2 you lose the signalling value of Oxbridge - sure you can argue on TSR "my 2:2 is better than a 1st at a Russell Group" but in reality on your CV you have just lost the key value of Oxbridge which says I am one of the elite because I got accepted by Oxbridge, it now says I got accepted but when I was there I struggled a bit so if your company is looking for the elite, you might accept me but bear in mind I might struggle a bit compared to someone who went to Oxbridge and got a 2:1.
There are always examples of people that have a 2:2 and do well because they have other skills that mean they are always going to succeed, but those are the type of people that could have done well without going to uni in the first place. The big issue these days about a 2:2 is it autofilters you out of most of the large employers (even a 2:2 from a top university), so it makes graduate search more difficult. There are still the small/medium sized enterprises to look for but those take more effort to find and apply for because they don't have the money or time to do large milkround applications, most graduates apply for large graduate schemes for that reason.
If you have graduated and have got a 2:2 then no point crying over spilt milk, scour the SME market, there are some articles online if you google them about how to find SME opportunities, particularly in local cities. But If you haven't graduated and are thinking does it really matter if I get a 2:1 or 2:2, know that whilst there are no guarantees either way of getting a job, it will make your job search significantly harder if you haven't got a 2:1 because most big firms will autofilter you out.
One other point on the 'signalling', you will sometimes hear people say at uni or on TSR that it doesn't make a difference if you get a 1st, because the filters usually say 2:1, so why bust a gut to try and get a 1st. The difference comes back to the signalling, a 1st is a signal of top quality that will impress employers that are looking for top quality. Even if you went to a less good uni, getting a 1st suggests that you were pretty hot and could have done OK at a better uni. It always surprises me that on TSR people are so anal about league tables and say if there's a graduate from Nottingham and a graduate from Southampton then the employer's going to prefer the Nottingham one because it's higher in the league tables etc, but IMO having a 1st or a 2:1 will take precedence in signalling over a university's position in a league table because the employer is employing you as an individual, the quality of your university department isn't going to help their firm. So if you are really trying to put every bit of difference between you and the competition then getting a 1st will help significantly.
You can argue for other reasons for education, personal development etc, but the signalling part - showing you're better than the masses and worth considering further, is a huge reason most people do it especially now they have to drop thousands of pounds to go to university. The major problem with a 2:2 is it loses your signalling value, it is no longer a signal of quality because most students get at least a 2:1, so it says I went to university but was in the lower third of my peers. If you go to Oxbridge and get a 2:2 you lose the signalling value of Oxbridge - sure you can argue on TSR "my 2:2 is better than a 1st at a Russell Group" but in reality on your CV you have just lost the key value of Oxbridge which says I am one of the elite because I got accepted by Oxbridge, it now says I got accepted but when I was there I struggled a bit so if your company is looking for the elite, you might accept me but bear in mind I might struggle a bit compared to someone who went to Oxbridge and got a 2:1.
There are always examples of people that have a 2:2 and do well because they have other skills that mean they are always going to succeed, but those are the type of people that could have done well without going to uni in the first place. The big issue these days about a 2:2 is it autofilters you out of most of the large employers (even a 2:2 from a top university), so it makes graduate search more difficult. There are still the small/medium sized enterprises to look for but those take more effort to find and apply for because they don't have the money or time to do large milkround applications, most graduates apply for large graduate schemes for that reason.
If you have graduated and have got a 2:2 then no point crying over spilt milk, scour the SME market, there are some articles online if you google them about how to find SME opportunities, particularly in local cities. But If you haven't graduated and are thinking does it really matter if I get a 2:1 or 2:2, know that whilst there are no guarantees either way of getting a job, it will make your job search significantly harder if you haven't got a 2:1 because most big firms will autofilter you out.
One other point on the 'signalling', you will sometimes hear people say at uni or on TSR that it doesn't make a difference if you get a 1st, because the filters usually say 2:1, so why bust a gut to try and get a 1st. The difference comes back to the signalling, a 1st is a signal of top quality that will impress employers that are looking for top quality. Even if you went to a less good uni, getting a 1st suggests that you were pretty hot and could have done OK at a better uni. It always surprises me that on TSR people are so anal about league tables and say if there's a graduate from Nottingham and a graduate from Southampton then the employer's going to prefer the Nottingham one because it's higher in the league tables etc, but IMO having a 1st or a 2:1 will take precedence in signalling over a university's position in a league table because the employer is employing you as an individual, the quality of your university department isn't going to help their firm. So if you are really trying to put every bit of difference between you and the competition then getting a 1st will help significantly.
Original post by M1011
Well, I don't have a 2.2 but I'll take a crack at this.
First Year - 73%
Second Year - 59%
Final Year - 73% (average to date, about 70% of marks received)
Go figure on that? I've done equally little work every year, so I don't really understand the fluctuations. All I know is final year is worth 3/4 of the degree so I'm not complaining
First Year - 73%
Second Year - 59%
Final Year - 73% (average to date, about 70% of marks received)
Go figure on that? I've done equally little work every year, so I don't really understand the fluctuations. All I know is final year is worth 3/4 of the degree so I'm not complaining
Haha, that is a very weird fluctuation. What degree are you reading?
73% in your first year is very good - extremely hard to keep that up if you're a history/politics student like me haha. I wrote an essay which the tutor couldn't find a point for me to improve on and yet was still only given a 74! Suppose it depends on who you've got marking which is a bit annoying.
Reckon I'll end up with an average of around 66-68% in the end. Maybe higher if I do well in my exams.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Having the confidence to resign from my job
- Masters with a 3rd class degree
- Shame surrounding my 2:2 Law Degree
- Can you drop out of university at anytime?
- Is going to mid tier universities bad?
- Can you apply to a masters with a Top up Degree?
- Worried about future
- m I good enough?
- Anyone else stressing about their final marks?
- Why is a 2:1 'good' when it's technically average?
- Appealing degree classification
- Degree classification borderline question , pre- ponderance rule
- University Classification
- Extenuating Circumstances Degree Classification
- what can you do with a 3rd class degree?
- Is 2:2 a bad grade?
- Achieving 80% in my 3rd year - aerospace Engineering
- Rent is due soon - should I take out a loan?
- Do uni's round up degree class percentages?
- Cambridge NatSci Honors
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 week ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 week ago
Issues with jobs because I cannot driveTrending
Last reply 1 day ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 week ago
So I made the worst decision of my life. I chose Biochemistry as my degree.Last reply 1 week ago
Issues with jobs because I cannot drive
