The Student Room Group

Cambridge Graduate - Failing at Life! =/

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by keliouster
Yes. Both useless if you're looking to get into a graduate scheme. Neither meets the ESSENTIAL minimum 2:1 requirement. There's no exception because of your university's reputation.


In a way I agree, but I was tlking about the graduate schemes that require a 2:2, they do exist BAE Systems, Jaguar Landrover, DESG, Network Rail.

So if you have both candidates in front of you both with a 2:2, you would be swayed towards the one issued by Cambridge?
Reply 41
Original post by Jamil1987
In a way I agree, but I was tlking about the graduate schemes that require a 2:2, they do exist BAE Systems, Jaguar Landrover, DESG, Network Rail.

So if you have both candidates in front of you both with a 2:2, you would be swayed towards the one issued by Cambridge?


If everything else was actually equal (highly highly unlikely) then why not have the middlesex one? With a poorer standard of edcation they have been as good as the cambridge person, so they may perform better with the same training.

At that point its an entire toss up.
Reply 42
Original post by Quady
If everything else was actually equal (highly highly unlikely) then why not have the middlesex one? With a poorer standard of edcation they have been as good as the cambridge person, so they may perform better with the same training.

At that point its an entire toss up.


As good? Hardly, the Cambridge graduate is going to have sat exams which are more difficult, and has been put through a more rigorous course.
Reply 43
Wow. Yeah, you expect better - But you don't you understand that the country is going through hard times and has one of the highest unemployment rates for a long time? - Take what you have. At-least you have something.

19k a year is bad? Yeah, maybe for a student with a degree from Cambridge - But I know people who would die for that wage. Is 19k a year enough to get by on plus some spending money? 100%.

Also, stop looking down on people. Makes you look like a idiot in all honesty. Your not better than these chavs the way you are moaning.
Reply 44
Original post by Nichrome
As good? Hardly, the Cambridge graduate is going to have sat exams which are more difficult, and has been put through a more rigorous course.


Cambridge grads (about double) get 2.1 or above compared to Middlesex, they have better people so need more difficult exams to differentiate out the people with 1sts (or better more easily as they give far far more of them away.
Reply 45
Original post by Nichrome
As good? Hardly, the Cambridge graduate is going to have sat exams which are more difficult, and has been put through a more rigorous course.


btw I mean't via the assessment process.

If a supposedly much better Cambridge grad gets the same scores in the assessments for the job then they are 'as good'.
Reply 46
Original post by Quady
btw I mean't via the assessment process.

If a supposedly much better Cambridge grad gets the same scores in the assessments for the job then they are 'as good'.


Ah, my mistake, apologies for that. Yeah in that case, I would wholeheartedly agree, why not got for the Middlesex one?
Reply 47
Original post by keliouster
No it doesn't. A 2:2 is a 2:2 regardless of which uni he graduate from. The only time when uni reputation is taken into consideration is when there's two 1st class graduates whose likeness and applications are similar strength in all areas.

His degree won't help him get into good companies. He'll have to rely on getting further qualifications and most of all, work experience.


I can't see this happening. I know it's unfair but unless a company has a purely scientific approach then Cambridge will work in his favor.
Reply 48
Original post by iSMark
I can't see this happening. I know it's unfair but unless a company has a purely scientific approach then Cambridge will work in his favor.


You can't see this happening because you're not an employer. They all look at the person specification checklist and soon as they see a 2:2 your CV is in the bin.
Reply 49
Original post by ebam_uk
Loads of people get 2.2's and still get decent jobs, etc, apply for internships, maybe consider going for Front Office, Internship & Convert to Full Time, its possible with your Op's experience as a leverage tool.


Those people relied on A levels and work experience to secure the internship, and slowly worked up from there. You can boast you have a successful career but you can't claim it's because you have a degree. A 2:2 graduate from Cambridge going down this route is akin to someone not having been to university at all. The years invested at Cambridge will have been for nothing if OP did this, but of course, he'll still get to brag about his successful career.
Reply 50
Original post by keliouster
Those people relied on A levels and work experience to secure the internship, and slowly worked up from there. You can boast you have a successful career but you can't claim it's because you have a degree. A 2:2 graduate from Cambridge going down this route is akin to someone not having been to university at all. The years invested at Cambridge will have been for nothing if OP did this, but of course, he'll still get to brag about his successful career.


Nope, Cambridge is a "target school" for many investment banks...

Some just assess you based on their own criteria tbh and don't consider grades so much etc.
Reply 51
Original post by keliouster
You can't see this happening because you're not an employer. They all look at the person specification checklist and soon as they see a 2:2 your CV is in the bin.


Some companies bin the 2.2 applicants immediately yes. Not all of them though. I may not be an employer, and I doubt you are either? However I know that someone who got a 2.2 at Cambridge has probably worked harder than someone who got a 2.1 at my local university. I know someone who did Natural Sciences at Cambridge and got a 2.1, only just, although they had worked their arse off, living and breathing Cambridge.

Employers can be flexible, not all of them are rigid multinationals that don't look at the whole picture.

Your view point is biased and the OP should not pay attention to your posts.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by ebam_uk
Nope, Cambridge is a "target school" for many investment banks...

Some just assess you based on their own criteria tbh and don't consider grades so much etc.


The big banks do. But smaller firms are a maybe, but in this climate I wouldn't like to get his hopes up tbh. :P
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 53
Manchester Grammar School. Lol.
All the MGS guys I know are *****s.
Reply 54
a 2:2 from Cambridge is equivalent to a 1st from somewhere like London

& a 2:1 from Oxford
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by the bear
a 2:2 from Cambridge is equivalent to a 1st from somewhere like London


That's a bit much. I wouldn't say that's true of all the London unis (Imperial, for example) :smile:
Original post by the bear
a 2:2 from Cambridge is equivalent to a 1st from somewhere like London


If you mean somewhere like London Met maybe, but certainly not the same as Imperial, UCL or LSE. :nah:
Reply 57
Original post by iSMark
Some companies bin the 2.2 applicants immediately yes. Not all of them though. I may not be an employer, and I doubt you are either? However I know that someone who got a 2.2 at Cambridge has probably worked harder than someone who got a 2.1 at my local university. I know someone who did Natural Sciences at Cambridge and got a 2.1, only just, although they had worked their arse off, living and breathing Cambridge.

Employers can be flexible, not all of them are rigid multinationals that don't look at the whole picture.

Your view point is biased and the OP should not pay attention to your posts.


Only people who think a 2:2 from Cambridge is equivalent to 2:1 from lower ranked universities are Oxbridge students/wannabe students/graduates. Some companies may target Oxbridge in particular but they too cut off graduates getting below a 2:1.

Employers are not flexible. Not all of them are rigid multinationals but all of them are receiving hundreds/thousands of applicants all exceeding their minimal requirements so there is no reason to waste time probing further to find out why the minority of applicants under achieved, hoping maybe one of them is actually more qualified than some who meet the recommended requirements of the person specification. Most of them just want to spend less than a minute glancing at each CV when there's over a thousand of candidates to choose from. If you don't want employers weighing your formal qualifications so strictly then don't apply for a graduate scheme.

Yes my view is biased but it's based on what a number of recruiters are admitting so it's fairly accurate compared to your idealistic view.
A degree grade is worth what the person looking at it decides it is.

Some employers might think "wow a 2.2 from Cambridge!" Other employers might look at a 2.2 as less favourable. Some employers might not give a monkeys either way.

There is no gospel that says everyone views grades in the same way. One persons A might feel like another persons C. It all comes down to context, what the person with the grades is trying to achieve and what employers (both as individuals and across a particualr field in general) are looking for.

Edit: I also think it's worth saying that a person is worth more than grades on paper. A persons "worth" (a term that I use cautiously here) to an employer can not be determined by grades alone. I think personality has a lot to do with things. For example, you could have a candidate with a 1st class degree who doesn't provide a covering letter and comes across as introverted and unco-operative at an interview VS someone with a 2:2 who writes a fantastic covering letter and comes across as someone who is willing to learn and dedicate themselves to a company in the long run. There is more to a person than their vital statistics. I agree that education can be a very key stepping stone into graduate schemes (for example) but there is more to a person than how they look on paper.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 59
Original post by keliouster
Only people who think a 2:2 from Cambridge is equivalent to 2:1 from lower ranked universities are Oxbridge students/wannabe students/graduates. Some companies may target Oxbridge in particular but they too cut off graduates getting below a 2:1.

Employers are not flexible. Not all of them are rigid multinationals but all of them are receiving hundreds/thousands of applicants all exceeding their minimal requirements so there is no reason to waste time probing further to find out why the minority of applicants under achieved, hoping maybe one of them is actually more qualified than some who meet the recommended requirements of the person specification. Most of them just want to spend less than a minute glancing at each CV when there's over a thousand of candidates to choose from. If you don't want employers weighing your formal qualifications so strictly then don't apply for a graduate scheme.

Yes my view is biased but it's based on what a number of recruiters are admitting so it's fairly accurate compared to your idealistic view.


Well I guess I fit the bill being a graduate (although not from oxbrige), although that is a rather large percentage of people looking for graduate jobs.

My view isn't biased. I didn't get a 2.2 (2.1), I didn't go to Oxbridge and I have a graduate job. I'm guessing you're a student then? So you haven't looked for a graduate job then?

Quick Reply

Latest