This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- 3rd year radiography student
- Joint Hons St Andrews or Nat Sci or Lancaster nat sc
- How many people get 2:1s and better?
- Shall I apply for a job that I do not fully meet the requirements for?
- How will I be graded in uni and questions about employers
- Jobs for people with A Levels but no degree?
- Getting expelled from university
- 3 essays in 2 hours
- Child of Migrant Worker Questions
- Why is a 2:1 'good' when it's technically average?
- Will my Law firm be able to see my university application?
- Is a 2:2 at uni really bad
- Studying in Holland and how it effects UK employability (especially psychology)
- Is maths and philosophy just as employable as a maths degree?
- Tesco holiday pay
- Is prestige actually important?
- Cambridge Degree Honors - NatSci
- Do employers check a levels if I have two first class degrees?
- Getting a 2:2 first year
- Will employers really care what Uni I graduate from? I'm doing Marketing.
Three quarters of employers 'require 2:1 degree'
Scroll to see replies
Doughnuts!!
Sure, that's cool with me 
Out of curiousity, what's going on during the week? Work?
Out of curiousity, what's going on during the week? Work?
Work
Smack
Yeah of course. Think about it. Who looks more attractive to an employer: someone who has volunteered to take part in projects that better their local community and those in need, or someone who has sat about playing Xbox and drinking cider and sleeping until midday? Extra curriculars are very important in generic graduate recruitment.
Oh right volunteering etc. When I saw extra curriculars I just thought of stuff like sport or playing an instrument; didn't really think of volunteering as coming under the same bracket but I suppose it does.
ily_em
Oh right volunteering etc. When I saw extra curriculars I just thought of stuff like sport or playing an instrument; didn't really think of volunteering as coming under the same bracket but I suppose it does.
Well sports and instruments would also count as well.
ElemenT'
I think the UK is turning into a wasteland, and I want to leave ASAP.
Putting it a bit strong eh?
ElemenT'
Well absolutely everything regarding the economy is a complete mess. The job market is awful even for top tier graduates.
Yeah, but hardly a 'wasteland' as such. Prospects will improve again for graduates in the coming years - particularly in the private sector as it hauls Britain back into consistent, positive growth, allowing expansion of companies and therefore their recruitment.
ElemenT'
Well absolutely everything regarding the economy is a complete mess. The job market is awful even for top tier graduates.
No, it's not really.
innerhollow
That's just based on induction and talking to university tutors. We also had a whole thread on this a few months ago.
Plus, it's fairly obvious that if someone who found their A-levels and absolute cakewalk and someone who barely managed to pass their A-levels are both getting 2:1s in the same subject, there's a difference in the difficulty of their exams. And we definitely know about course content differences. Economics is the biggest culprit for this. Oxbridge teach you really difficult mathematical models to apply while low-ranked unis have zero mathematical content.
Well to repeat you: how you know how good or bad teaching quality is at TVU without ever having gone there?
Anyway, I would think to the contrary. The tutors at Oxford are largely leading researchers . The TVU tutors won't be really involved in much research, so can devote more time to their students.
But that's meaningless anyway- you can't use the "bad teaching" argument so much for uni considering the focus on independant learning.
I didn't realise they could ask for UCAS points....
Plus, it's fairly obvious that if someone who found their A-levels and absolute cakewalk and someone who barely managed to pass their A-levels are both getting 2:1s in the same subject, there's a difference in the difficulty of their exams. And we definitely know about course content differences. Economics is the biggest culprit for this. Oxbridge teach you really difficult mathematical models to apply while low-ranked unis have zero mathematical content.
Well to repeat you: how you know how good or bad teaching quality is at TVU without ever having gone there?
Anyway, I would think to the contrary. The tutors at Oxford are largely leading researchers . The TVU tutors won't be really involved in much research, so can devote more time to their students.
But that's meaningless anyway- you can't use the "bad teaching" argument so much for uni considering the focus on independant learning.
I didn't realise they could ask for UCAS points....
it more a guess on the fact they won't have world class researchers at TVU who are leaders in their area, and their endowment is not even 1% of what Oxford get, all this can bring in the best people in the world to teach you, most students by the time they finished their degree have a pretty good idea where they will end up, people don't kid themsevles that a degree from TVU will get you into IB, it may get you into a medical school but thats another matter, just people on this site think they will be in the top 1% of earners within 5 years, and that fact you have a hell of a lot of A-level students and lower who thing they know everything about the grad job market, most uni students don't even have a clue about it
places ask for A-levels, over 300 ucas points is not uncommon, again you an start the whole well what about those that A-levels things went a bit wrong, got into a good uni and ended up with a 2.1 or a 1st because they worked
innerhollow
Like I said, though, uni is a lot more focused on independant learning, so by that stage you can't really make excuses about external circumstances anymore. People who are good at their subject and work hard will do well.
You can't really compare uni standards anyway, since unis don't have comparable exams.
TSR users seem to be a lot less naive than people I know- who think that all they need is to do a degree somewhere and a well-paying graduate job will be waiting for them at the end.
It's not 100% their fault though since that's exactly what teachers tell us.
If people are saying wrong things about the graduate job market, you can point it out! Everywhere on this site I regularly see comments like "Oh stupid A-level students thinking they know everything" But from what I've seen, most school students on this site seem to be concordant with what the graduates themselves say about the grad job market!!
I guess if you're performed well throughout your life you're going to be favoured in times of competition. Perhaps not overly fair I guess.
You can't really compare uni standards anyway, since unis don't have comparable exams.
TSR users seem to be a lot less naive than people I know- who think that all they need is to do a degree somewhere and a well-paying graduate job will be waiting for them at the end.
It's not 100% their fault though since that's exactly what teachers tell us.If people are saying wrong things about the graduate job market, you can point it out! Everywhere on this site I regularly see comments like "Oh stupid A-level students thinking they know everything
" But from what I've seen, most school students on this site seem to be concordant with what the graduates themselves say about the grad job market!!I guess if you're performed well throughout your life you're going to be favoured in times of competition. Perhaps not overly fair I guess.
well you need a well stocked library, which can come under your resources, i don't like comparing uni standards, even league tables should only be taken at face value
the job market is poor no matter what you are looking at, there more built on you get into a job and get stuck for 40 old years, the route my dergee can lead down on the NHS in hospital about 270 people going for 4 position, could be going up against people who have a degree from St geoge's, essex or even ARU
i'll put my hands up there is this naive view that going to uni will get you a good job, heck you could get a 1st from oxford and end up on minimum wage, and get a 2.2 from another uni say a 1998 group and get taken on by a small company starting on £25,000, it may seen unfair but it happens, most places have had to cut back, its no real shock seeing how many people going for 1 place, its a cut throat world, just because one person has this and another has that, they may not have the skills they looking for, you need to stand out and show that you are the person they are looking for
http://www.prospects.ac.uk/sectors.htm that is a good website just to look and see
the trouble why you see comments like that about A-level students not helped by a few members or trolls who base a hell of a lot of league tables, the times being the one they like the best, still get a 2.1 and it make life a little easier
Wolfos
Oh yeah sure, that's exactly what I was thinking.
Chumbaniya
I like to imagine that degree subject and university are taken into account in addition to the degree classification. I've got a 2.ii, but it's in maths from Cambridge and it is no exaggeration to say that a 1st at many universities in many subjects would have been a cakewalk for me.
Absolutely. I mean surely getting a 1,1 in STEP is probably harder than getting a first at some places.
im so academic
This.
How the hell is a 1st from Oxford the same from Oxford Brookes/Thames Valley or whatever?
How the hell is a 1st from Oxford the same from Oxford Brookes/Thames Valley or whatever?
Thames Valley is miles ahead of Oxbridge mate...majority of the summer intern intake at Goldman Sachs this year are from TVU.
innerhollow
Oh thanks ^_^
Just checked my rep. Yeah I did get your rep, thanks. That was a really nice comment lol
Just checked my rep. Yeah I did get your rep, thanks. That was a really nice comment lol
No worries, was just telling the truth! I need to rep riotgrrl as well...
Now I just await rep from both of you telling me how I'm a god and the best person EVER!
innerhollow
I don't think you're reading that stat right, and I think it's phrased deceptively too. By the way that you're reading it, a meagre 34% of graduate employers consider work experience a significant criteria. Does that sound right to you?
Plus, the pay disparity between top unis and lower unis speaks for itself.
It's NOT snobbery to say that a 2:1 graduate from Oxford gets more regard than a 2:1 graduate from Thames Valley! Considering the Oxford graduate sat far harder exams to get that same grade, it's only fair they get some recognition for that.
Plus, the pay disparity between top unis and lower unis speaks for itself.
It's NOT snobbery to say that a 2:1 graduate from Oxford gets more regard than a 2:1 graduate from Thames Valley! Considering the Oxford graduate sat far harder exams to get that same grade, it's only fair they get some recognition for that.
The article says "minimum entry requirements" rather than "significant criteria" (which isn't exactly the same thing), so apologies for that.
The fact remains, though, that only 7% of graduate recruiters consider study at certain universities a "minimum entry requirement" to be considered in the application process. Which suggests something about the relative significance that the other 93% place on this criterion.
I suppose the main point I was trying to make, though, is that this is in complete contrast to what some users here (again, mostly uni/college students) have been claiming.
It may not necessarily be snobbery to say that an Oxford graduate would, in general, be held in higher regard than the TVU graduate. It is snobbery to claim or imply that an Oxford graduate is intrinsically "better" than the TVU student or more deserving of a top graduate job (and successful career) simply because they went to Oxford. I use TVU as an example because it's the same cliche rolled out by so many of the snobs here (and yes, they are snobs) that take a bizarre satisfaction in looking down on students at "lesser" universities.
You can't really boil this down to whether assessments are "harder" at one university than they are at another, as there's so many other factors involved. This is probably why the majority of employers don't value certain universities over others, at least not to the extent that some individuals here would like them to.
The whole argument about whether employers think the institution attended is pretty irrelevant to the vast majority of people here anyway because if you've any sense you'll go to the best department you can for your subject with regards to employability, course content and reputation and location, and for most that means a Russell or 1994 Group university.
eddy2375
The article says "minimum entry requirements" rather than "significant criteria" (which isn't exactly the same thing), so apologies for that.
The fact remains, though, that only 7% of graduate recruiters consider study at certain universities a "minimum entry requirement" to be considered in the application process. Which suggests something about the relative significance that the other 93% place on this criterion.
I suppose the main point I was trying to make, though, is that this is in complete contrast to what some users here (again, mostly uni/college students) have been claiming.
The fact remains, though, that only 7% of graduate recruiters consider study at certain universities a "minimum entry requirement" to be considered in the application process. Which suggests something about the relative significance that the other 93% place on this criterion.
I suppose the main point I was trying to make, though, is that this is in complete contrast to what some users here (again, mostly uni/college students) have been claiming.
I think you're completely twisting what TSR users say. In fact, most of them do acknowledge that degree class and work experience are a lot more important than specific uni. However, going to a better uni is at least an asset to some extent for most grad jobs (with exceptions, i.e. engineering/medicine/R&D). So if someone on this site tossing up whether to go to Edinburgh or go to Hull, it's more helpful to tell them "You know you might have an easier time, even if it's only slightly easier, getting a general graduate job if you go to Edinburgh you realise"; rather than the usual warm fuzzy crap you get from teachers like "No. Study at whichever uni you like! Everything's nice and happy in the world, so do what makes you happy!" Yuck.
Looking at minimum requirements doesn't give the best overview, and actually gives a very poor insight, given the highly competitive nature of today's grad job market. For example, very few places actually explicitly state if they discriminate based on institution. Investment banks don't mention anything about it in the actual job descriptions; but if you look at a list of interns for any investment bank and the name of the uni they're attending, you'd struggle to find anything other than LSE, Oxbridge, Imperial and a mild scattering of other Top 10 unis.
It may not necessarily be snobbery to say that an Oxford graduate would, in general, be held in higher regard than the TVU graduate. It is snobbery to claim or imply that an Oxford graduate is intrinsically "better" than the TVU student or more deserving of a top graduate job (and successful career) simply because they went to Oxford. I use TVU as an example because it's the same cliche rolled out by so many of the snobs here (and yes, they are snobs) that take a bizarre satisfaction in looking down on students at "lesser" universities.
You can't really boil this down to whether assessments are "harder" at one university than they are at another, as there's so many other factors involved. This is probably why the majority of employers don't value certain universities over others, at least not to the extent that some individuals here would like them to.
You can't really boil this down to whether assessments are "harder" at one university than they are at another, as there's so many other factors involved. This is probably why the majority of employers don't value certain universities over others, at least not to the extent that some individuals here would like them to.
It's completely unfair on the Oxbridge candidate not to have their degree viewed more positively, considering how difficult it was
for them to actually gain entry to the uni, and even more difficult to get a good grade whilst there. I'm not saying for a second that on it's own, simply going to Oxbridge means you deserve all the top jobs ahead of everyone else, though! Just that with all other factors taken into account, a 2:1 from Oxbridge deserves more regard/praise/value than a 2:1 from pretty much any other uni.
Yes I CAN boil this down to whether assessments are harder! Hence why this situation doesn't apply to the world of medicine, as all med schools in the country are held to a very high standard. If lesser ranked unis had the same standard of exams as Oxbridge, then any slurs on them would definitely be out of snobbery. However, as long as other unis are setting much easier exams, it is justified to think that Oxbridge graduates deserve more regard.
innerhollow
If lesser ranked unis had the same standard of exams as Oxbridge, then any slurs on them would definitely be out of snobbery. However, as long as other unis are setting much easier exams, it is justified to think that Oxbridge graduates deserve more regard.
Whilst Oxbridge exams maybe harder, the extra difficulty is due to the expectation that the cohort is likely to be of higher ability and therefore the examinations need to be set appropriately to test those in the 1/2.1 range.
For example, this QAA report on Oxford mathematics is from a while ago but reflects my point regarding the examinations being set at the top end (at the potential of neglect for those of 2.2 standard and below):
QAA
Following scrutiny of examples of student work and examination scripts for 1999, the reviewers confirm the opinions of external examiners that the overall level of
achievement is very high. The quality achieved by the best students is outstanding. Initiatives taken in response to external examiners' suggestions for enabling weaker students to demonstrate their ability have had limited success to date. The reviewers concur with external examiners that the standards attained by a few students, awarded a Lower Second classification, are disappointing.
achievement is very high. The quality achieved by the best students is outstanding. Initiatives taken in response to external examiners' suggestions for enabling weaker students to demonstrate their ability have had limited success to date. The reviewers concur with external examiners that the standards attained by a few students, awarded a Lower Second classification, are disappointing.
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/subjectLevel/q204_00.pdf
The result for that year was the award across the undergraduate provision, of an average of about 23 per cent obtain First class honours degrees; just under 50 per cent Upper Second class honours; 22 per cent Lower Second class awards, and about 6 per cent Third class degrees.
Equivalently, maths graduates at, for example, Greenwich, would have expected far fewer Firsts, about 20% 2.1 and the majority awarded 2.2s. The examinations might have been easier at Greenwich because they were targeted at a lower ability cohort but this not equate to the assessment standards being less rigorous.
Of course, some will still argue that an Oxford 2.1 in maths is better than a person with a 2.1 from Greenwich. This maybe true, it maybe not. An Oxford maths student will certainly be educated and exposed to material of the very highest standard but whether their personal achievement can match what they learn is more difficult to assess. The problem is the system in Oxford (or Cambridge) is often very elite and designed to test the very best and not Mr Average. It is easier to spot ability in the Greenwich cohort because they stand out from the rest very easily just as it is easy to spot people with exceptional ability at Oxford. The problem is that an Oxford maths student of 2.1/2.2 standard maybe scoring low marks in examinations and potentially barely answering any questions in papers because many questions are set to test abilities that are beyond them (I know because I've seen the raw scores before they go through the standardisation formulas). This is particularly striking in mathematics where there is a bonus for giving complete answers rather than partial ones.
Many have been calling for a revision to the grading system and these types of features expose why this is needed.
Related discussions
- 3rd year radiography student
- Joint Hons St Andrews or Nat Sci or Lancaster nat sc
- How many people get 2:1s and better?
- Shall I apply for a job that I do not fully meet the requirements for?
- How will I be graded in uni and questions about employers
- Jobs for people with A Levels but no degree?
- Getting expelled from university
- 3 essays in 2 hours
- Child of Migrant Worker Questions
- Why is a 2:1 'good' when it's technically average?
- Will my Law firm be able to see my university application?
- Is a 2:2 at uni really bad
- Studying in Holland and how it effects UK employability (especially psychology)
- Is maths and philosophy just as employable as a maths degree?
- Tesco holiday pay
- Is prestige actually important?
- Cambridge Degree Honors - NatSci
- Do employers check a levels if I have two first class degrees?
- Getting a 2:2 first year
- Will employers really care what Uni I graduate from? I'm doing Marketing.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 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 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 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 ?
