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

I have enjoyed this thread as me and my friends have this discussion a fair bit. In my family brother in law got a 2.2, sister got 2.1 and I got a 1st.
and I have found it the hardest to apply for things...why?....because I got 3 C's at alevel.

Jobs that are graduate jobs and schemes, they often have a UCAS point requirement too and for so many of them I didn't have the points. This hasnt stopped me getting a scheme but it did close a few doors.
Just like maybe getting a 2.2 might close some (to be honest a lot) of the big 100 graduate schemes, but there are companies out there who will still be interested you just have to keep looking.

On a side note, regarding stuff people have said about the ability to get a 2.1 or a 1st? That you have to be super clever or 'something'.... from my personal experience people would probably say I was lazy 1st yr I barely passed had tons of re-sits etc, 2nd yr my average was 54% (2.2 equiv) 3rd year is was 66% (2.1) and 4th and final year (studied in scotland) I got a 72% average. I can honestly say it was down to a lot of really really hard work between 3rd and 4th year.
I do think the 1st,2.1,2.2 is a pain though, I have friends who had constantly A's and B's through uni and got 69%, then me who barely made it through the first two years...

No insult intended, but I notice a distinct relationship between crappy A-levels and first class honours these days. Crappy A-levels (no offence) lead to a below-par university, and such universities seem to give out more firsts then anything else. It's a bit of a joke really, I don't think I've seen anyone from Northumbria on my facebook news feed who hasn't got a first. Plenty of other sub-standard universities are the same, they obviously just hand out plenty of firsts to make up for the university name. Guess they have to get their graduate employment rates up somehow right?

I don't say this to be cruel or to start an argument, but please don't presume because you glided through a course at a sub-standard university (no idea where you went, basing this on your A-levels) that degrees aren't far more challenging elsewhere. I literally look down my news feed on facebook (with this being graduation season for my school year) and it seems that the majority of bright kids that went to decent universities have 2.1s whereas the majority of the ones who didn't achieve strong results at school and went to low table universities came out with firsts. Kinda devalues the qualification in my eyes, I personally think universities should have to publicly publish the percentage of each grade they give out to graduates.

This is such total crap I don't know where to start.

But here's the really startling thing. Of those who achieved a first in 2009-10, almost half (48%) were in full-time employment six months after graduating, according to statistics I obtained from the the Higher Education Statistics Agency (results for 2010/11 are published in June). What may surprise you is that the percentages for those with 2:1s and for those with 2:2s are almost exactly the same.

I don't have a degree yet but I've secured employment with a multinational company with graduate opportunities and I've got a year left at uni. I'll be doing 20 hours a week alongside my full time degree. Who's going to have more of a chance of getting on a graduate role with that company, me with a year's work experience, good A-levels and third or 2:2, or someone with a 2:1 or a first with less/no experience and weaker real world skills?
Classifications are a help but in my opinion what is more important for graduate roles is getting relevant work experience, through summer internships, or securing employment well before leaving uni. After all isn't the main purpose of getting a degree for most people to set them up for a good future with a solid career? If you get a good graduate job, then it is job done, it doesn't matter what classification your degree is, it has served its purpose.

I think universities suck in general to be honest. They award statistically random quotas to different degrees - i.e. at some good unis the norm is 30-40% firsts for subjects like Maths, English, Physics, but 5-10% firsts for a subject like Law. Still they award the vast majority of people 2:1s, which devalues the degree entirely so employers can't tell anyone apart. Then they award some people 2:2s who are as borderline as those with 2:1s.

I think universities suck in general to be honest. They award statistically random quotas to different degrees - i.e. at some good unis the norm is 30-40% firsts for subjects like Maths, English, Physics, but 5-10% firsts for a subject like Law. Still they award the vast majority of people 2:1s, which devalues the degree entirely so employers can't tell anyone apart. Then they award some people 2:2s who are as borderline as those with 2:1s.

Is it? Perhaps I just have an odd group of friends then. Like I say I don't intend to insult, but why are straight C students suddenly getting firsts at degree level? In the originally quoted individuals post he made it clear that he did not put in substantial effort, wasn't incredibly smart and was previously a straight C student. Why is he now being awarded a first? I hypothesise that is is because the playing field is no longer even (we all sit the same A-level exams more of less). I'm happy to be corrected, but my observations seem to strongly suggest that a first from a top 20 uni compared to a first from a bottom 20 uni are far from equally challenging (assuming same subject). I also have about 8 friends at Northumbria and all of them got firsts (which is why I used that example, I have nothing particularly against that university), seems like a pretty strange coincidence but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Anyway, glad to be corrected if I'm off base here?

This is why, rather than asking for classifications, employers should ask for percentages to see who falls barely into a classification, and those who clearly are on the top end. UCL's GPA system is where the other unis need to go.

But, a chap who only secures a summer intern, would have to re-apply for FT work and then he would have to compete with the 1st and the 2.1 of the world.
Your case is different

No offense but you sound kind of ignorant, did you ever think that maybe during their A level time they were going through personal problems at home like someone dying, parents divorcing maybe they might have learning difficulties.

A levels is not an indication of intelligence you don't know what A levels that person even did. They might of done Physics, English Literature, Maths and got 3 C's and went to a low ranked uni and someone else might have done Photography, General Studies and Art and got 3 A's.

Or maybe they choose a subject that they wanted to do and enjoyed at uni so they worked hard on their course. Not everyone goes to uni just to do a course they have no interest in and only think about earning 30K+ in a an office job they are not happy in.

No offense but you sound kind of ignorant, did you ever think that maybe during their A level time they were going through personal problems at home like someone dying, parents divorcing maybe they might have learning difficulties.

A levels is not an indication of intelligence you don't know what A levels that person even did. They might of done Physics, English Literature, Maths and got 3 C's and went to a low ranked uni and someone else might have done Photography, General Studies and Art and got 3 A's.

Or maybe they choose a subject that they wanted to do and enjoyed at uni so they worked hard on their course. Not everyone goes to uni just to do a course they have no interest in and only think about earning 30K+ in a an office job they are not happy in.

Think of it this way, the average candidate going into a top 20 university is stronger than the average candidate going into a bottom 20 university, undeniable right? So surely, if all things are equal, there should be far more first grades awarded by the top 20 universities, where students on average are working to a higher standard, then in the bottom 20 universities which on average have the weaker students (on AVERAGE). Yet it seems to work in the opposite direction, with more firsts being awarded by the weaker institutions who clearly have a weaker intake of students on average.

Is it? Perhaps I just have an odd group of friends then. Like I say I don't intend to insult, but why are straight C students suddenly getting firsts at degree level? In the originally quoted individuals post he made it clear that he did not put in substantial effort, wasn't incredibly smart and was previously a straight C student. Why is he now being awarded a first? I hypothesise that is is because the playing field is no longer even (we all sit the same A-level exams more of less). I'm happy to be corrected, but my observations seem to strongly suggest that a first from a top 20 uni compared to a first from a bottom 20 uni are far from equally challenging (assuming same subject). I also have about 8 friends at Northumbria and all of them got firsts (which is why I used that example, I have nothing particularly against that university), seems like a pretty strange coincidence but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Anyway, glad to be corrected if I'm off base here?