The great '2:2 will leave you unemployed' rubbish. Do classifications even matter?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by M1011
Apologies, but regardless of whether my post is correct or not, it is still yours that reeks of ignorance! You're looking at this all wrong. Yes someone might have extenuating circumstances for doing poorly at A-Level, or visa-versa for doing poorly at degree level, but those cases are surely the minority and will equally effect each side of the equation. It really has no bearing on what I'm referring to, which is that there seems to be an awful lot of people with poor A-levels yet strong degree classifications from low ranked institutions.
I entirely agree, A-levels do not measure intelligence. However they do measure things such as work ethic and academic ability, surely? Your point about all A-levels not being created equal is quite right, but surely only serves to reinforce my point as opposed to yours? The weak A-levels you mentioned won't be accepted by top universities? Either way, it doesn't really effect the question at hand; why do so many candidates go from weak grades to firsts at low ranked institutions, yet not at high ranked institutions?
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.
Nice sarcasm, but if you want a debate try not to act like a child OK? In answer to your point, I'm sure many do pick to study what they enjoy at degree level, but many also pick to do the same thing at A-level. What exactly is your point here? Surely this again equally effects both sides of the coin so doesn't explain lower universities awarding so many firsts?
I entirely agree, A-levels do not measure intelligence. However they do measure things such as work ethic and academic ability, surely? Your point about all A-levels not being created equal is quite right, but surely only serves to reinforce my point as opposed to yours? The weak A-levels you mentioned won't be accepted by top universities? Either way, it doesn't really effect the question at hand; why do so many candidates go from weak grades to firsts at low ranked institutions, yet not at high ranked institutions?
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.
Nice sarcasm, but if you want a debate try not to act like a child OK? In answer to your point, I'm sure many do pick to study what they enjoy at degree level, but many also pick to do the same thing at A-level. What exactly is your point here? Surely this again equally effects both sides of the coin so doesn't explain lower universities awarding so many firsts?
Well how do you know that all the people at low ranked universities have poor A levels
I know loads of people who got straight A's in all their AS and A2 levels and yes they were hard course's but they got rejected from top ranked universities because of the area they were from.
Plus not all top universities are good at every subject, certain universities are stronger at a particular subject which obviously someone who does their research will know that is more important.
You are still ignorant because you assume only because someone goes to a top 20 uni that means they are better than someone from a low 20 uni.
What does someone in in low ranked uni got to do with work ethic and academic ability.
I know people who got into top 20 universities who don't have a clue what they want to do in the future or have no dreams or aspirations in life but because they went to private school and their parents earn a combined salary of 50K+ a year they get a free ride.
I personally think people who had to work their way from the bottom to the top have better work ethic since obviously things weren't handed to them on a plate and they had to work hard to get to the top. Yes that might come across ignorant on my part but that's my opinion obviously there are people who can't help the fact their parents are well off and if they work hard that's good for them.
There are people with different learning difficulties that writing exams doesn't cater to their ability and true talent. That's why they turn to more practical, art and design based subjects and excel in them there not weak subjects by any means. Everything you look at is designed even the laptop/computer you are using right now is designed by someone.
Why don't they deserve their 1st do you know what course they are all doing do you know what is involved in the course.
You are blaming the fact that you got a 2.2 or 3rd at your top 20 university. You obviously have yourself to blame maybe you shouldn't have assumed because you got good A levels that you would get good University results.
And obviously not everyone can go to the same university since obviously there will be no spaces to accommodate them all considering international and other EU students are competing for the same places.
Alot of top 20 universities are willing to take on students with low grades because they have money and like you said want to maintain the high grades at their university, so lets not throw stones at glass houses.
And no I'm not being sarcastic or childish because I live in the real world.
(edited 11 years ago)
Times have changed a lot since the financial crisis back in 2008. With many people being made redundant employers now have the power. Hiring managers are now able to outline very specific job criteria and know that someone will fill the vacancy.
With regards to degree classifications, getting a 1st or 2:1 as opposed to a 2:2 has clear distinctive advantages. Most graduate schemes require a minimum of a 2:1, Most top post-graduate schools require at least a 2:1 (Oxbridge etc), In a competitive job market having a 2:2 would put you third on a potential list of candidates with higher classifications. Graduates holding a 1st or 2:1 every year are around 66% on average.
In reality however, degree's are just part of the criteria that employers and agencies look at. Company's have shifted more towards finding people with relevant experience as opposed to having 5 degrees. Your CV must be balanced with both academic or/and professional qualifications and relevant work experience.
Graduate schemes are extremely tough to get into and the applications to vacancy ratio sits at about 500:1 maybe even more for well known MNCs. Nowadays people end up following post-graduate study simply due to the fact that there are far too many people at the graduate level to be able to stand out.
Agencies are really a big problem in that they actually act as a barrier to employment. Pre-recession it was a case of ringing a company directly however the trend now seems to be outsourcing recruitment to agencies as SME's don't have both the personnel and time to post vacancies and interview people.
A 2:2 is good depending on the field you want to work in. It's just a matter of getting work experience (voluntary most probably) and maybe going into post-graduate study. If not you can always go abroad and find work.
With regards to degree classifications, getting a 1st or 2:1 as opposed to a 2:2 has clear distinctive advantages. Most graduate schemes require a minimum of a 2:1, Most top post-graduate schools require at least a 2:1 (Oxbridge etc), In a competitive job market having a 2:2 would put you third on a potential list of candidates with higher classifications. Graduates holding a 1st or 2:1 every year are around 66% on average.
In reality however, degree's are just part of the criteria that employers and agencies look at. Company's have shifted more towards finding people with relevant experience as opposed to having 5 degrees. Your CV must be balanced with both academic or/and professional qualifications and relevant work experience.
Graduate schemes are extremely tough to get into and the applications to vacancy ratio sits at about 500:1 maybe even more for well known MNCs. Nowadays people end up following post-graduate study simply due to the fact that there are far too many people at the graduate level to be able to stand out.
Agencies are really a big problem in that they actually act as a barrier to employment. Pre-recession it was a case of ringing a company directly however the trend now seems to be outsourcing recruitment to agencies as SME's don't have both the personnel and time to post vacancies and interview people.
A 2:2 is good depending on the field you want to work in. It's just a matter of getting work experience (voluntary most probably) and maybe going into post-graduate study. If not you can always go abroad and find work.
Original post by Indieboohoo
Well how do you know that all the people at low ranked universities have poor A levels
I know loads of people who got straight A's in all their AS and A2 levels and yes they were hard course's but they got rejected from top ranked universities because of the area they were from.
I know loads of people who got straight A's in all their AS and A2 levels and yes they were hard course's but they got rejected from top ranked universities because of the area they were from.
Have you by chance taken this a little personally? Do you still not understand the word average? Do you not think that proportionally more straight A students go to top unis then bottom unis, hence making your statement about "loads of people who got straight A's" a bit redundant, as far more with straight A's will be at top universities? Please look up the word average before replying again with similar individual examples.
As for people getting rejected because of the area they are from, what utter rubbish. Top universities are just as diverse as bottom universities, with the exception of a very select few (oxbridge) which admittedly do seem to take a large proportion from private school. But that's a different debate.
Original post by Indieboohoo
Plus not all top universities are good at every subject, certain universities are stronger at a particular subject which obviously someone who does their research will know that is more important.
I most definitely did mention relative to subject in one of the previous posts. Of course universities differ depending on subject, but generally speaking the overall ranking is a solid measure of the university (generally). Evidently if you go to a top uni for your subject then that is a top uni in your situation, but generally speaking the entry requirements would then reflect that for your course choice (i.e. high requirements), so the point stands.
Original post by Indieboohoo
You are still ignorant because you assume only because someone goes to a top 20 uni that means they are better than someone from a low 20 uni.
What does someone in in low ranked uni got to do with work ethic and academic ability.
What does someone in in low ranked uni got to do with work ethic and academic ability.
Yes, I assume the average top 20 uni candidate is stronger academically then the average bottom 20 uni candidate. Can you possibly be disagreeing with me there? People at top uni's have worked hard to get there and achieved well in the past, that's why they are at a top uni! Of course there will be exceptions, again research the word 'average'.
Original post by Indieboohoo
I know people who got into top 20 universities who don't have a clue what they want to do in the future or have no dreams or aspirations in life but because they went to private school and their parents earn a combined salary of 50K+ a year they get a free ride.
Again, yes there will be plenty of waste of space people at top 20 universities. But there will be plenty more at bottom 20 universities. Average.
As for the private school thing, combined salary of 50k is hardly your average private school family. That'd be about the average starting salary for a decent graduate couple lol, think bigger for private school kids! Not that I am one, just saying.
Original post by Indieboohoo
I personally think people who had to work their way from the bottom to the top have better work ethic since obviously things weren't handed to them on a plate and they had to work hard to get to the top. Yes that might come across ignorant on my part but that's my opinion obviously there are people who can't help the fact their parents are well off and if they work hard that's good for them.
I don't disagree with you here. Yes if you're put into a private school you've got a better chance of achieving well academically. However if you're implying that only rich students get into good universities, you're incredibly wrong.
Original post by Indieboohoo
There are people with different learning difficulties that writing exams doesn't cater to their ability and true talent. That's why they turn to more practical, art and design based subjects and excel in them there not weak subjects by any means. Everything you look at is designed even the laptop/computer you are using right now is designed by someone.
Sorry when did this turn into a discussion about art subjects? Completely irrelevant?
Original post by Indieboohoo
Why don't they deserve their 1st do you know what course they are all doing do you know what is involved in the course.
You are blaming the fact that you got a 2.2 or 3rd at your top 20 university. You obviously have yourself to blame maybe you shouldn't have assumed because you got good A levels that you would get good University results.
You are blaming the fact that you got a 2.2 or 3rd at your top 20 university. You obviously have yourself to blame maybe you shouldn't have assumed because you got good A levels that you would get good University results.
Again, missing the point of what I'm saying... Assuming you agree that the AVERAGE student is more academically able at a top uni (that's why they got in right?!) then why would top unis not be the ones putting out lots of first grades? The reason bottom unis put out so many firsts is because they make the grade easier to achieve comparatively to top unis, which for me devalues the worth of all degrees. A first used to be a genuinely great achievement, now it's a 1 in 8. That's why students who (on average) achieved worse up to that stage and ended up in a low ranked university are suddenly able to do at least equally well in their degrees compared to those that achieved well at school. They couldn't cut it at A-level when there was a level playing field, but they can now when the field is uneven. That's just the way it is, no?
Also, some lovely assumptions here. Not really relevant but lets clear a few things up;
1) I didn't go to a top 20 university (shocker).
2) I achieved a 2.1, which I was perfectly happy with.
Original post by Indieboohoo
And obviously not everyone can go to the same university since obviously there will be no spaces to accommodate them all considering international and other EU students are competing for the same places.
No, you're quite right. That's why we separate universities by ability. What's your point? Should we not reward merit?
Original post by Indieboohoo
Alot of top 20 universities are willing to take on students with low grades because they have money and like you said want to maintain the high grades at their university, so lets not throw stones at glass houses.
Sigh. Please read this back to yourself, it makes no sense. They are willing to take students with low grades but they want to maintain high grades? What?
Perhaps this could be argued for foreign students, but all home students pay the same tuition fees, so no incentive for unis to take poor quality students for money.
Original post by Indieboohoo
And no I'm not being sarcastic or childish because I live in the real world.
Don't we all? What other world would you be living in?
Original post by misseckleburg
I can see where you're coming from but I do think you are 'off base'. According to the latest Complete University Guide and all other league tables, there is a definite correlation between going to a 'good' university and getting a good (ie 2.1 or first) degree. At Oxford the percentage of those who achieved good honours last year was 90.9%, at Nottingham it was 74.9%, at Northumbria which you mentioned it was 59.5%, and at East London it was 43%. Remember also that this is Facebook - people share what they want to share. Those who got firsts are significantly more likely to post a status about it than those who got 2.2s.
Quite an interesting league table, thanks for sharing. It does vary a bit, but you're right it does seem to generally speaking correlate. I'd be interested to see if there was a table for 1st class degrees though, as I think that would be a different situation entirely to 2.1+.
As for the facebook comment, yea you're right next to nobody posts about a 2.2 or 3rd, but nevertheless the ones who got top grades were generally not students who I would have expected to perform well at degree level. Similarly lots of 2.1s for strong uni students, so I think it does point towards my original point. Of course I do admit that my friend group doesn't necessarily represent all students though.
Original post by M1011
Have you by chance taken this a little personally? Do you still not understand the word average? Do you not think that proportionally more straight A students go to top unis then bottom unis, hence making your statement about "loads of people who got straight A's" a bit redundant, as far more with straight A's will be at top universities? Please look up the word average before replying again with similar individual examples.
As for people getting rejected because of the area they are from, what utter rubbish. Top universities are just as diverse as bottom universities, with the exception of a very select few (oxbridge) which admittedly do seem to take a large proportion from private school. But that's a different debate.
I most definitely did mention relative to subject in one of the previous posts. Of course universities differ depending on subject, but generally speaking the overall ranking is a solid measure of the university (generally). Evidently if you go to a top uni for your subject then that is a top uni in your situation, but generally speaking the entry requirements would then reflect that for your course choice (i.e. high requirements), so the point stands.
Yes, I assume the average top 20 uni candidate is stronger academically then the average bottom 20 uni candidate. Can you possibly be disagreeing with me there? People at top uni's have worked hard to get there and achieved well in the past, that's why they are at a top uni! Of course there will be exceptions, again research the word 'average'.
Again, yes there will be plenty of waste of space people at top 20 universities. But there will be plenty more at bottom 20 universities. Average.
As for the private school thing, combined salary of 50k is hardly your average private school family. That'd be about the average starting salary for a decent graduate couple lol, think bigger for private school kids! Not that I am one, just saying.
I don't disagree with you here. Yes if you're put into a private school you've got a better chance of achieving well academically. However if you're implying that only rich students get into good universities, you're incredibly wrong.
Sorry when did this turn into a discussion about art subjects? Completely irrelevant?
Again, missing the point of what I'm saying... Assuming you agree that the AVERAGE student is more academically able at a top uni (that's why they got in right?!) then why would top unis not be the ones putting out lots of first grades? The reason bottom unis put out so many firsts is because they make the grade easier to achieve comparatively to top unis, which for me devalues the worth of all degrees. A first used to be a genuinely great achievement, now it's a 1 in 8. That's why students who (on average) achieved worse up to that stage and ended up in a low ranked university are suddenly able to do at least equally well in their degrees compared to those that achieved well at school. They couldn't cut it at A-level when there was a level playing field, but they can now when the field is uneven. That's just the way it is, no?
Also, some lovely assumptions here. Not really relevant but lets clear a few things up;
1) I didn't go to a top 20 university (shocker).
2) I achieved a 2.1, which I was perfectly happy with.
No, you're quite right. That's why we separate universities by ability. What's your point? Should we not reward merit?
Sigh. Please read this back to yourself, it makes no sense. They are willing to take students with low grades but they want to maintain high grades? What?
Perhaps this could be argued for foreign students, but all home students pay the same tuition fees, so no incentive for unis to take poor quality students for money.
Don't we all? What other world would you be living in?
As for people getting rejected because of the area they are from, what utter rubbish. Top universities are just as diverse as bottom universities, with the exception of a very select few (oxbridge) which admittedly do seem to take a large proportion from private school. But that's a different debate.
I most definitely did mention relative to subject in one of the previous posts. Of course universities differ depending on subject, but generally speaking the overall ranking is a solid measure of the university (generally). Evidently if you go to a top uni for your subject then that is a top uni in your situation, but generally speaking the entry requirements would then reflect that for your course choice (i.e. high requirements), so the point stands.
Yes, I assume the average top 20 uni candidate is stronger academically then the average bottom 20 uni candidate. Can you possibly be disagreeing with me there? People at top uni's have worked hard to get there and achieved well in the past, that's why they are at a top uni! Of course there will be exceptions, again research the word 'average'.
Again, yes there will be plenty of waste of space people at top 20 universities. But there will be plenty more at bottom 20 universities. Average.
As for the private school thing, combined salary of 50k is hardly your average private school family. That'd be about the average starting salary for a decent graduate couple lol, think bigger for private school kids! Not that I am one, just saying.
I don't disagree with you here. Yes if you're put into a private school you've got a better chance of achieving well academically. However if you're implying that only rich students get into good universities, you're incredibly wrong.
Sorry when did this turn into a discussion about art subjects? Completely irrelevant?
Again, missing the point of what I'm saying... Assuming you agree that the AVERAGE student is more academically able at a top uni (that's why they got in right?!) then why would top unis not be the ones putting out lots of first grades? The reason bottom unis put out so many firsts is because they make the grade easier to achieve comparatively to top unis, which for me devalues the worth of all degrees. A first used to be a genuinely great achievement, now it's a 1 in 8. That's why students who (on average) achieved worse up to that stage and ended up in a low ranked university are suddenly able to do at least equally well in their degrees compared to those that achieved well at school. They couldn't cut it at A-level when there was a level playing field, but they can now when the field is uneven. That's just the way it is, no?
Also, some lovely assumptions here. Not really relevant but lets clear a few things up;
1) I didn't go to a top 20 university (shocker).
2) I achieved a 2.1, which I was perfectly happy with.
No, you're quite right. That's why we separate universities by ability. What's your point? Should we not reward merit?
Sigh. Please read this back to yourself, it makes no sense. They are willing to take students with low grades but they want to maintain high grades? What?
Perhaps this could be argued for foreign students, but all home students pay the same tuition fees, so no incentive for unis to take poor quality students for money.
Don't we all? What other world would you be living in?
Your first Quote
Original post by M1011
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?
Anyway, glad to be corrected if I'm off base here?
What I am disputing is the fact you assume because people got C's in A levels it's odd they are getting 1st in their degree's when there is no correlation between A level marks and Degree marks.
My point is you don't know how universities mark the work unless you are an examiner and assuming that because it's lower ranked university, the examiners are more lenient and would give people higher marks compared to higher ranked universities.
And you are bitter because your friends got 1st and you didn't maybe if you got a 1st and they got 2.1 you wouldn't moan about it. The last time I checked friends should be happy for someones grades not belittling them and making an excuse to justify why they did well.
You didn't even answer my questions do you know what courses your friends are doing? You should be a politician you walk around the ****ing question.
And obviously you haven't been reading the news recently but international students are getting excepted into high ranked universities with lower grades compared to the UK/EU counterparts. So yes it is about the money plus people from rich families can also get in high ranked universities with lower grades. They can afford to be selective which isn't a surprise in the slightest.
Your saying I'm taking things personally and your the one being so ****ing patronising it's unbelievable saying I don't understand what average means but where in your original post did you even mention the word average, exactly
and from your past posts you like to wind people up. 
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by wanderlust.xx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2012/apr/17/what-students-do-if-their-grades-are-low
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education?
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?
Why should anyone bother trying to work hard in education?
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?
One reason to work hard in education would be to decipher journalist bull****, except that this useful life skill doesn't seem to be taught.
This is the crux of the argument:
"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."
How startling indeed! Except this tells us nothing about what jobs these people have. If everyone in employment with a 2.1 gets onto a graduate scheme paying £28k, and everyone in employment with a 2.2 works in a shop on minimum wage, by this measure a 2.1 is as good as a 2.2. Is it actually? Of course not.
Or the random anecdote:
"Kate Morfoot, 37, read public relations and English at a time when PR degrees were rare. She finished with a 2:2 and now runs an award-winning PR agency."
Amazingly her degree class didn't matter when it came to starting her own business. Who would have guessed that she didn't filter out her own CV?
Not having at least a 2.1 severely narrows the range of jobs you can apply for, and excludes a lot of the better ones. The article even says this:
"Why give yourself those obstacles? What are you proving? If life is about eliminating as many future regrets as possible, then you need to make the most of your opportunities at university.
The wisdom of our parents holds true: work hard now so you don't have to work hard later."
It is trying to portray a dog-bites-man story as something interesting by implying that a 2.2 and a 2.1 are just as good, when in fact it doesn't say that at all.
Original post by Indieboohoo
What I am disputing is the fact you assume because people got C's in A levels it's odd they are getting 1st in their degree's when there is no correlation between A level marks and Degree marks.
My point is you don't know how universities mark the work unless you are an examiner and assuming that because it's lower ranked university, the examiners are more lenient and would give people higher marks compared to higher ranked universities.
And you are bitter because your friends got 1st and you didn't maybe if you got a 1st and they got 2.1 you wouldn't moan about it. The last time I checked friends should be happy for someones grades not belittling them and making an excuse to justify why they did well.
You didn't even answer my questions do you know what courses your friends are doing? You should be a politician you walk around the ****ing question.
And obviously you haven't been reading the news recently but international students are getting excepted into high ranked universities with lower grades compared to the UK/EU counterparts. So yes it is about the money plus people from rich families can also get in high ranked universities with lower grades. They can afford to be selective which isn't a surprise in the slightest.
Your saying I'm taking things personally and your the one being so ****ing patronising it's unbelievable saying I don't understand what average means but where in your original post did you even mention the word average, exactly and from your past posts you like to wind people up.
My point is you don't know how universities mark the work unless you are an examiner and assuming that because it's lower ranked university, the examiners are more lenient and would give people higher marks compared to higher ranked universities.
And you are bitter because your friends got 1st and you didn't maybe if you got a 1st and they got 2.1 you wouldn't moan about it. The last time I checked friends should be happy for someones grades not belittling them and making an excuse to justify why they did well.
You didn't even answer my questions do you know what courses your friends are doing? You should be a politician you walk around the ****ing question.
And obviously you haven't been reading the news recently but international students are getting excepted into high ranked universities with lower grades compared to the UK/EU counterparts. So yes it is about the money plus people from rich families can also get in high ranked universities with lower grades. They can afford to be selective which isn't a surprise in the slightest.
Your saying I'm taking things personally and your the one being so ****ing patronising it's unbelievable saying I don't understand what average means but where in your original post did you even mention the word average, exactly
and from your past posts you like to wind people up. I have a feeling we're going to keep going around in circles. But hey, one more round, why not?
It is odd that C students end up a firsts in one uni while A students in another uni end up with 2.1s. That is odd, full stop. Swap the students around and you'd get very different results. It's called grade inflation and it's a massive problem right now (read the news). It leaves us with little to differentiate candidates on, as qualifications are so drastically different across different universities. This isn't to do with effort, that differs between people, this is to do with the average ability of students which isn't being reflected by classifications these days. Be honest, who's the more able student, the one with a 2.1 from Cambridge or the one with a 1st from a bottom 20 university?
Being from a more middle ground university myself (somewhere in the 30s) I've noticed how much less work I've had to put in compared to some of my friends at top ranked universities for the same marks. I freely admit that, I did sod all for a lot of the year. Similarly, I've noticed when reading the placement essays of some friends from other universities the drastic difference in requirements. I've read placement essays and thought the work looked more like GCSE level than a major piece of degree work (bear in mind, these tend to be worth like 10% of the entire degree), yet I've seen those essays get marks in the 70s. I know if I handed one of those in I'd be in the 40s at my university, no doubt.
As for me being bitter, well no I'm not. I'd rather have a 2.1 from my university then a first from a bottom 20 any day. I doubt my friends from those kind of universities will have secured the kind of graduate opportunities I have with my degree, so really there is no need for me to be bitter. I used an example from my personal experiences and you've leapt on that in an attempt to discredit me. I've been perfectly successful thank you very much and am perfectly happy for my friends. The point I was making isn't aimed at individuals, it's aimed at a broken system. As for their courses, yes I do know what they are, of course I do, but they vary and I don't see the relevance of the point you're making? Does it matter what course they are doing? They are mostly based around Business.
As for me needing the read the news, read my post again. I specifically said home students pay the same fees but that it may be the case for international students. Did you just ignore the fact that I said that? You've attacked me for a point I didn't even make, you must try harder!
As for the whole personal thing, I asked 'are you' taking this personally. I did not make up random bs statements claiming you were, like you have done to me in the past two posts. The fact is it would appear you've jumped to the defence of this possibly from a biased position (whereas I myself think I sit nicely in the middle). I don't feel the need to resort to such idiotic fabrications in order to make my point, in what way do you pretend to know what my grade was (last post) or if I was bitter at my own friends? Grow up, I have a different opinion to you, stop crying about it.
Oh and final point, average is implied to any reasonable individual. I obviously (obviously!) wasn't trying to say that every student in a top 20 is better then every student in a bottom 20. Clearly my post referred to average ability, if you can't pick up on that then that's your problem not mine. I did however use the word several times in later posts to make it clearer for you, hope it helped.
Original post by Zenomorph
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.
Many companies give job offers straight away to their summer interns, or at least automatically invite them to final stage assessment centres.
And a 2:2 with relevant experience is still better than a 2:1 or above without any if there isn't an auto-filter in place.
Original post by Smack
Many companies give job offers straight away to their summer interns, or at least automatically invite them to final stage assessment centres.
And a 2:2 with relevant experience is still better than a 2:1 or above without any if there isn't an auto-filter in place.
And a 2:2 with relevant experience is still better than a 2:1 or above without any if there isn't an auto-filter in place.
I see but that is on the assumption that you do get an offer. If you don't, then you will have to apply to the grad schemes once you graduated and those will have auto filters
Original post by Zenomorph
I see but that is on the assumption that you do get an offer. If you don't, then you will have to apply to the grad schemes once you graduated and those will have auto filters
Whilst there are many that do have auto-filters, there are many that don't.
Original post by M1011
I have a feeling we're going to keep going around in circles. But hey, one more round, why not?
It is odd that C students end up a firsts in one uni while A students in another uni end up with 2.1s. That is odd, full stop. Swap the students around and you'd get very different results. It's called grade inflation and it's a massive problem right now (read the news). It leaves us with little to differentiate candidates on, as qualifications are so drastically different across different universities. This isn't to do with effort, that differs between people, this is to do with the average ability of students which isn't being reflected by classifications these days. Be honest, who's the more able student, the one with a 2.1 from Cambridge or the one with a 1st from a bottom 20 university?
Being from a more middle ground university myself (somewhere in the 30s) I've noticed how much less work I've had to put in compared to some of my friends at top ranked universities for the same marks. I freely admit that, I did sod all for a lot of the year. Similarly, I've noticed when reading the placement essays of some friends from other universities the drastic difference in requirements. I've read placement essays and thought the work looked more like GCSE level than a major piece of degree work (bear in mind, these tend to be worth like 10% of the entire degree), yet I've seen those essays get marks in the 70s. I know if I handed one of those in I'd be in the 40s at my university, no doubt.
As for me being bitter, well no I'm not. I'd rather have a 2.1 from my university then a first from a bottom 20 any day. I doubt my friends from those kind of universities will have secured the kind of graduate opportunities I have with my degree, so really there is no need for me to be bitter. I used an example from my personal experiences and you've leapt on that in an attempt to discredit me. I've been perfectly successful thank you very much and am perfectly happy for my friends. The point I was making isn't aimed at individuals, it's aimed at a broken system. As for their courses, yes I do know what they are, of course I do, but they vary and I don't see the relevance of the point you're making? Does it matter what course they are doing? They are mostly based around Business.
As for me needing the read the news, read my post again. I specifically said home students pay the same fees but that it may be the case for international students. Did you just ignore the fact that I said that? You've attacked me for a point I didn't even make, you must try harder!
As for the whole personal thing, I asked 'are you' taking this personally. I did not make up random bs statements claiming you were, like you have done to me in the past two posts. The fact is it would appear you've jumped to the defence of this possibly from a biased position (whereas I myself think I sit nicely in the middle). I don't feel the need to resort to such idiotic fabrications in order to make my point, in what way do you pretend to know what my grade was (last post) or if I was bitter at my own friends? Grow up, I have a different opinion to you, stop crying about it.
Oh and final point, average is implied to any reasonable individual. I obviously (obviously!) wasn't trying to say that every student in a top 20 is better then every student in a bottom 20. Clearly my post referred to average ability, if you can't pick up on that then that's your problem not mine. I did however use the word several times in later posts to make it clearer for you, hope it helped.
It is odd that C students end up a firsts in one uni while A students in another uni end up with 2.1s. That is odd, full stop. Swap the students around and you'd get very different results. It's called grade inflation and it's a massive problem right now (read the news). It leaves us with little to differentiate candidates on, as qualifications are so drastically different across different universities. This isn't to do with effort, that differs between people, this is to do with the average ability of students which isn't being reflected by classifications these days. Be honest, who's the more able student, the one with a 2.1 from Cambridge or the one with a 1st from a bottom 20 university?
Being from a more middle ground university myself (somewhere in the 30s) I've noticed how much less work I've had to put in compared to some of my friends at top ranked universities for the same marks. I freely admit that, I did sod all for a lot of the year. Similarly, I've noticed when reading the placement essays of some friends from other universities the drastic difference in requirements. I've read placement essays and thought the work looked more like GCSE level than a major piece of degree work (bear in mind, these tend to be worth like 10% of the entire degree), yet I've seen those essays get marks in the 70s. I know if I handed one of those in I'd be in the 40s at my university, no doubt.
As for me being bitter, well no I'm not. I'd rather have a 2.1 from my university then a first from a bottom 20 any day. I doubt my friends from those kind of universities will have secured the kind of graduate opportunities I have with my degree, so really there is no need for me to be bitter. I used an example from my personal experiences and you've leapt on that in an attempt to discredit me. I've been perfectly successful thank you very much and am perfectly happy for my friends. The point I was making isn't aimed at individuals, it's aimed at a broken system. As for their courses, yes I do know what they are, of course I do, but they vary and I don't see the relevance of the point you're making? Does it matter what course they are doing? They are mostly based around Business.
As for me needing the read the news, read my post again. I specifically said home students pay the same fees but that it may be the case for international students. Did you just ignore the fact that I said that? You've attacked me for a point I didn't even make, you must try harder!
As for the whole personal thing, I asked 'are you' taking this personally. I did not make up random bs statements claiming you were, like you have done to me in the past two posts. The fact is it would appear you've jumped to the defence of this possibly from a biased position (whereas I myself think I sit nicely in the middle). I don't feel the need to resort to such idiotic fabrications in order to make my point, in what way do you pretend to know what my grade was (last post) or if I was bitter at my own friends? Grow up, I have a different opinion to you, stop crying about it.
Oh and final point, average is implied to any reasonable individual. I obviously (obviously!) wasn't trying to say that every student in a top 20 is better then every student in a bottom 20. Clearly my post referred to average ability, if you can't pick up on that then that's your problem not mine. I did however use the word several times in later posts to make it clearer for you, hope it helped.
I will express my response with smilies
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Indieboohoo
I will express my response with smilies
In Northumbria that response would have got a 1st
Original post by M1011
In Northumbria that response would have got a 1st
Yay!!! At least I would still do better than you
Original post by Indieboohoo
Yay!!! At least I would still do better than you
I disagree in every way
However, now that we're done arguing, I'd just like to let you know it was nothing personal and I certainly don't have an issue with people who get good grades from low unis. I was trying to make a point about what I believe is a broken system. Personally I believe that top grades are devalued these days by the fact that so many low universities are giving out just as many 1st class degrees (if not more) as top universities. The fact that I have a 2.1 is nothing to do with it, if anything I'm defending those that work hard to get a 1st at a strong university only to be placed at the same level of the likes of that first guy I quoted who claimed to be a C grade student who isn't intelligent and doesn't work hard (his words more or less). But hey, each to their own, degrees are just an entry requirement to a job anyway if we're honest about it
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.
It will, trust me, a 2.1 you have a chance of getting on a grad scheme, a 2.2 and its nigh on impossible, no matter what degree
It's a good point to note that degree classifications are a 'filtering' tool that companies use to sieve through the weaker candidates especially for graduate schemes. It could be argued that GCSE's and A-levels are more of a deciding factor since most people applying for a scheme will hold at least a 2:1 if it is the minimum required.
In my opinion a degree means an individual has the ability to refer to books and pass exams and written work. It is NOT a tool to measure an individuals ability in a practical work environment. I've seen people who hold a 1st who have no clue in a practical environment & I've seen people with 2:2's who perform like they've been working in the field for 10 years.
Unfortunately, as mentioned before employers are now able to seek candidates with both excellent academics and relevant experience. There are just too many people to compete with at the graduate level. Don't forget there is always a backlog of graduates from previous years who were unable to find work. Now with many professionals entering the job market it's pretty much curtains for graduates (unless you get onto a grad scheme). Reed, Indeed, Monster etc are all posted by agencies who ultimately put forward the best and highly qualified people (i.e. professionals) because they're commission driven fools who are a thorn in everyone's side. Sorry, but agencies are just the same as bankers and our dear MP's. They only care about personal gain!
Next time you go into a retail store, ask the retail assistant's whether they hold a degree. At least 50% would say yes. It's a cycle we're in. Professionals take grad level roles and grads are left with retail jobs.
In my opinion a degree means an individual has the ability to refer to books and pass exams and written work. It is NOT a tool to measure an individuals ability in a practical work environment. I've seen people who hold a 1st who have no clue in a practical environment & I've seen people with 2:2's who perform like they've been working in the field for 10 years.
Unfortunately, as mentioned before employers are now able to seek candidates with both excellent academics and relevant experience. There are just too many people to compete with at the graduate level. Don't forget there is always a backlog of graduates from previous years who were unable to find work. Now with many professionals entering the job market it's pretty much curtains for graduates (unless you get onto a grad scheme). Reed, Indeed, Monster etc are all posted by agencies who ultimately put forward the best and highly qualified people (i.e. professionals) because they're commission driven fools who are a thorn in everyone's side. Sorry, but agencies are just the same as bankers and our dear MP's. They only care about personal gain!
Next time you go into a retail store, ask the retail assistant's whether they hold a degree. At least 50% would say yes. It's a cycle we're in. Professionals take grad level roles and grads are left with retail jobs.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by shane1989
Next time you go into a retail store, ask the retail assistant's whether they hold a degree. At least 50% would say yes. It's a cycle we're in. Professionals take grad level roles and grads are left with retail jobs. Another problem is that international people (Europe) come and take our jobs simply because they work for cheap salaries. From a company perspective it's a cheaper option.
Next time you go into a retail store, ask the retail assistant's whether they hold a degree. At least 50% would say yes. It's a cycle we're in. Professionals take grad level roles and grads are left with retail jobs. Another problem is that international people (Europe) come and take our jobs simply because they work for cheap salaries. From a company perspective it's a cheaper option.
Europeans don't undercut UK wages on grad schemes though.
The thing is that whenever you apply for a job you're just trying to avoid the employer binning you because that's what they're trying to do. If you ever do any recruitment you get an inch high pile of CV's and it's about pruning people for interview.
The first thing you do is say **** it and get rid of any over two pages or without a 2:1. Then you read them, and you bin anything that talks about irrelevant **** or is littered with spelling mistakes. You're looking for things to get rid of people on!
This is the only reason why the 2:2 and 2:1 are such a big deal. Because a 2:2 can get you binned straight off whereas - by and large - a 2:1 won't.
Lol'd!
The first thing you do is say **** it and get rid of any over two pages or without a 2:1. Then you read them, and you bin anything that talks about irrelevant **** or is littered with spelling mistakes. You're looking for things to get rid of people on!
This is the only reason why the 2:2 and 2:1 are such a big deal. Because a 2:2 can get you binned straight off whereas - by and large - a 2:1 won't.
Original post by M1011
In Northumbria that response would have got a 1st
Lol'd!
Some of the concerns here have been picked up by the government, it seems, or at least the relevant minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9356477/Willetts-employers-pick-graduates-from-just-six-universities.html
summary: employers complain about lack of suitable candidates, but are looking at a narrow pool of graduates from a select few universities, therefore missing out on talent. Also criticises the crude nature of filtering of degree classifications by employers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9356477/Willetts-employers-pick-graduates-from-just-six-universities.html
summary: employers complain about lack of suitable candidates, but are looking at a narrow pool of graduates from a select few universities, therefore missing out on talent. Also criticises the crude nature of filtering of degree classifications by employers.
I thought I would post this in order to encourage all graduates who also have a 2.2 degree.
I recently graduated at the LSE with a 2.2 in Social Policy. My time at uni has not been great as I originally started uni doing Social Policy and Economics, failed all my economics modules in second year and had to resit a whole year as LSE does not do summer resists. Then to end up with a 2.2 after 4years was upsetting and panicked about applying for work as I thought that no one will take me because of the fact I have a 2.2 and because I was at uni for 4years. I was fortunate in that I did have a little bit of work experience. I worked in a recruitment agency doing admin for 2 summers, volunteered at citizens advice, did admin at Royal Mail, was a maths tutor at a school and a student ambassador at my uni.
At the beginning of 3rd year I applied to a number of graduate schemes that ask for a 2.2 but I got no where with any of them and then decided that my best approach was to apply for jobs directly rather than go down the graduate scheme route.
So in May I started applying for jobs. I decided to apply job to work in Higher Education in admissions or the marketing department (which pays well in London unis) or in a school (but not as a teacher) due to my previous work experience as a Maths tutor and student ambassador which I really enjoyed. But the most important thing was to get a job in London so I also applied for admin jobs as well. I started applying for loads of jobs and like many graduates was getting loads of rejections or no reply at all. I was even applying for admin jobs which I have done before yet still nothing as well. I started panicking that I would have to move out of my hall in July with no work, move back home with my parents and end up claiming JSA.
After a month I got a job interview at a uni. I went for the 1st stage assessment which went well and got to the final stage interview. The interview didn't go well as it was shorter than expected and stumbled on a few questions. I ended up not getting the job due to 'lack of experience' which was annoying and upsetting as it was a really good job with good pay.
I kept applying and still nothing and in July I had to move back home with my parents. Just before I had to pack out I got a phone call about a job interview in a school as a Data Achievement and Progress assistant in which the job needed someone to compile data for the vice principle. In order to go to the job interview it cost me loads of money as I had to book a hotel in London and pay for train tickets. After booking the train tickets the date got changed so it cost me even more to rebook for a later date.
I went to the interview and the first part involved doing a mail merge and analyse data on excel. Unfortunately I almost forgot how to do mail merge and didn't finish the task and thought I failed the assessment. To make thing worse I was competing with other 4 people who have done data analysis in their previous role. I also gave them a copy of my transcript which had all my failed economics modules and so thought there was no way I was gonna get the job. However when I did the interview it went OK and one of the candidates left early as she got another job offer else where so my chances increased a little bit. Later on that day I got a phone call from the school and they told me I got the job. Apparently in the assessment I was the only person who did what they were asking in the first part and I thought I did really badly. So after 2.5 months of searching I got a job that pays really well
So to all you job seekers out there I sure eventually you will get something even if it is not totally what you are looking for. Don't apply just for anything and make sure when you are applying you cover in your application everything in the job description. Ironically the jobs I got replies for are jobs that I wanted and paid well not basic admin jobs that I have done before. Be patient as well. The job market is tough and we are competing against people who have done the job for many years which makes it even harder. Also the more work experience you can gain the better. I actually found that my work experience held me back rather than my degree. Finally if you are like me with a 2.2 degree you many need to change your approach to applying for work. Its unlikely that you will get a graduate scheme so focus your time applying for jobs directly in which you can do a good job application and show that you can meet the job description
Good luck to all the graduates out there and hope that you all find something soon as well (sorry for the long post)
I recently graduated at the LSE with a 2.2 in Social Policy. My time at uni has not been great as I originally started uni doing Social Policy and Economics, failed all my economics modules in second year and had to resit a whole year as LSE does not do summer resists. Then to end up with a 2.2 after 4years was upsetting and panicked about applying for work as I thought that no one will take me because of the fact I have a 2.2 and because I was at uni for 4years. I was fortunate in that I did have a little bit of work experience. I worked in a recruitment agency doing admin for 2 summers, volunteered at citizens advice, did admin at Royal Mail, was a maths tutor at a school and a student ambassador at my uni.
At the beginning of 3rd year I applied to a number of graduate schemes that ask for a 2.2 but I got no where with any of them and then decided that my best approach was to apply for jobs directly rather than go down the graduate scheme route.
So in May I started applying for jobs. I decided to apply job to work in Higher Education in admissions or the marketing department (which pays well in London unis) or in a school (but not as a teacher) due to my previous work experience as a Maths tutor and student ambassador which I really enjoyed. But the most important thing was to get a job in London so I also applied for admin jobs as well. I started applying for loads of jobs and like many graduates was getting loads of rejections or no reply at all. I was even applying for admin jobs which I have done before yet still nothing as well. I started panicking that I would have to move out of my hall in July with no work, move back home with my parents and end up claiming JSA.
After a month I got a job interview at a uni. I went for the 1st stage assessment which went well and got to the final stage interview. The interview didn't go well as it was shorter than expected and stumbled on a few questions. I ended up not getting the job due to 'lack of experience' which was annoying and upsetting as it was a really good job with good pay.
I kept applying and still nothing and in July I had to move back home with my parents. Just before I had to pack out I got a phone call about a job interview in a school as a Data Achievement and Progress assistant in which the job needed someone to compile data for the vice principle. In order to go to the job interview it cost me loads of money as I had to book a hotel in London and pay for train tickets. After booking the train tickets the date got changed so it cost me even more to rebook for a later date.
I went to the interview and the first part involved doing a mail merge and analyse data on excel. Unfortunately I almost forgot how to do mail merge and didn't finish the task and thought I failed the assessment. To make thing worse I was competing with other 4 people who have done data analysis in their previous role. I also gave them a copy of my transcript which had all my failed economics modules and so thought there was no way I was gonna get the job. However when I did the interview it went OK and one of the candidates left early as she got another job offer else where so my chances increased a little bit. Later on that day I got a phone call from the school and they told me I got the job. Apparently in the assessment I was the only person who did what they were asking in the first part and I thought I did really badly. So after 2.5 months of searching I got a job that pays really well
So to all you job seekers out there I sure eventually you will get something even if it is not totally what you are looking for. Don't apply just for anything and make sure when you are applying you cover in your application everything in the job description. Ironically the jobs I got replies for are jobs that I wanted and paid well not basic admin jobs that I have done before. Be patient as well. The job market is tough and we are competing against people who have done the job for many years which makes it even harder. Also the more work experience you can gain the better. I actually found that my work experience held me back rather than my degree. Finally if you are like me with a 2.2 degree you many need to change your approach to applying for work. Its unlikely that you will get a graduate scheme so focus your time applying for jobs directly in which you can do a good job application and show that you can meet the job description
Good luck to all the graduates out there and hope that you all find something soon as well (sorry for the long post)
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?
- Why is a 2:1 'good' when it's technically average?
- Anyone else stressing about their final marks?
- 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 56 minutes ago
Balfour Beatty Graduate Scheme 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 6 days 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 56 minutes ago
Balfour Beatty Graduate Scheme 2024Last reply 2 hours ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 6 days 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
