The great '2:2 will leave you unemployed' rubbish. Do classifications even matter?

im not going to get a 2:1 though. not a chance.

im not going to get a 2:1 though. not a chance.

What I would do is this. Firstly, I'd discard all CVs without previous work experience of some sort - it doesn't have to be relevant, although that'd help, but they'd have to have some sort of evidence that they could turn up on time, dressed appropriately and function in an actual business environment.

Then once the initial trimming was done I'd consider the skills and qualities needed to perform the job and score the candidates numerically on how well their CV demonstrates that they can meet the requirements. I'd interview the top X, where X depends on how long the interviews were to last and how much time I had to conduct interviews, and whoever impresses the most from that interview would get the job.

I'd also strongly prefer someone with a relevant degree, too, although the importance of this would depend on the role - for some it'd be paramount, for others it wouldn't matter as much.

Actually impossible, or just thinking that there is no chance?

It's funny how they discriminate between 2:1 and 2:2. I can understand that perhaps those with higher marks should have that as an advantage than the guy with less marks. But it shouldn't be so great as that 2:2s aren't even bothered with an automatically sifted out.

And yet after you've got a 2:1, employers don't seem to care so much. A first is good, though the difference between a 2:1 and a 2:2 is much much greater. Despite a first being extremely hard to get.

I say either let employers rank people by their marks, putting firsts to the top of the list, or more favourably just treat the degree as a degree. If they've completed the degree, they've passed and have adequate knowledge of that degree/field. Getting a 2:1 doesn't necessarily say that that guy will be able to apply his skills in uni to a job situation. Which is what a job involves. The difference between the 2:1 guy and the 2:2 guy is often the 2:1 guy has memorised and learnt more of the information needed. Which isn't much of an advantage, the 2:2 guy can go ahead and learn that information too.

A 2:2 was fine a while ago, it's just employers are finding it difficult to provide enough jobs to the uni graduates. This is due to increased competition.

They're are too many degrees and unis out there. In my opinion cut down the number of unis (get rid of the unis that won't really be respected if you get a degree from there). This would also lead to the overall increase in strength of unis reputation and allowing more money to spent on each uni. In turn the existing unis should increase uni intake (which should give them more money). The number of courses should be cut down, they should be more specific like Chemistry, Maths etc. Not things such as Tv studies etc. Courses like Tv studies or something similar that's based more really on a general interest in the area rather than future prospects should be offered more as an extra module/course people can take up (or not go to uni for).

This would mean the standard of uni students and the skills they possess to be higher. Which means employers would be getting better students, as well as those students being more employable outside the uk.

Unfortunately what has happened is with so many unis out there, a lot of the lower ranked unis are offering different (and perhaps useless) degrees to be different and get enough students to attend their uni. Which shouldn't be the case. If unis are finding it difficult to obtain people to come to them, you have to close them down.

You're going to not bother with your education because of something you read in the papers? Really, some people like me would kill for a 2:1 but I haven't got the academic ability or intelligence. So consider yourself lucky.

*******s, I know some ****ing morons who are on the road to a 1st. It does not require intelligence, it just requires hard work. You're lazy, not stupid, just plain lazy. Anyone can get a 1st if they work hard enough.

not necessarily. just one mark can make the difference between a 2:1 and a 2:2.


you can't honestly expect politicians to cut down universities, there'd be outrage by students and staff alike.

oh wow thanks for this completely revolutionary post All this time I thought it had something to do with my depression, or dyslexia, but no, it turns out I'm just lazy. Thanks! I'll stay up all night and aim right for a first. I won't accept anything less now that you've made me realise the underlying cause behind my bad marks, you've changed my life forever!

I meant in terms of employment. Employers care a lot between 2:1 and 2:2. Not much between a 1st and 2:1. Which as I said is weird. After all a 1st is the same difference percentage wise from a 2:1 that a 2:1 is from a 2:2. And as you said it could simply be the difference of one mark. It doesn't seem fair.

Politicians are just wanting lots of unis for their own personal gain and please voters. In the long term cutting the number of unis would be the best solution and lead to a higher standard in education. There are over 100 unis I believe. Maybe that number is even increasing as we speak. But for a lot of those lower down unis, the degrees achieved aren't worth a lot hence not sure it's worth wasting all that money to get degrees such as that.

I'm saying more reduce the number of universities, increase the number of students at each uni. This would mean not a dramatic reduction in students. It would also either force students to take a proper degree (by which I mean a degree respected by employers) or not go to uni (and if they don't want to take a proper degree, financially they're probably better off not going to uni).

If you stop spending your time making **** excuses you might have more time to put towards working to get a first.

you know what they say...if you haven't got anything nice to say, **** off.

If you don't want to hear the cold, hard truth, don't post your asinine opinions on a public forum.

If you don't want people to bite back, don't quote on stuff that doesn't concern you. I have done nothing to deserve your hostility as far as I'm concerned, why are you attacking me?

Because you said you can't get a 2:1, you implied that it's impossible for certain people to get certain qualifications which is totally and completely absurd. A 2:1 is the minimum someone gets by putting a minimal amount of effort into their degree. No matter what excuse you give it's still an excuse and it gives you something to hide behind if you don't do as well as you ought to do.

Technically speaking a degree from New Bucks counts as the same as a degree, from, say, Leicester. The qualification is the same. It's the employer's problem if they want to discriminate between universities.

Increasing the number of students at each uni would lower the standard of those universities in turn, by having less resources for each student and less staff available. Not a good idea. Most unis are already oversubscribed.

The 2:1 is just a threshold I guess.

You're probably in education for the wrong reason if you're asking those questions... and making life choices based on what newspapers say.

Yeah but that's the thing they do.

Might not matter so much with respected unis, i.e. top 30-40 or so. But those unis that offer lots of "useless degrees" as it were will find it hard to be respected. Plus a lot of these unis seem to take in more students to do "useless degrees" than good ones. And that's partly because those unis find it difficult to compete with the top ones, hence offer different and unusual courses to attract students.

Ideally really if you're going to uni, you'd expect students trained by that uni to be good. Seems a bit weird that 2:1 is a minimum for many employers whilst you only need a 3rd to pass (which is around 20% difference to a 2:1). It's not really how it was supposed to be. It's just things have changed due to less jobs available. A while ago 2:2 was fine.