The Student Room Group

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

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
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.


Depends what job you want to go into. If you want your run of the mill graduate job they arent going to care about your grades, if you want a job in your field of study it will be a lot harder. I for one know for a fact the work I want to go into is ridiculously competitive and I will need a PhD, you need at least a 2.1 to do a PhD...

At the end of the day no matter what your degree classification you will struggle to find a job at the moment, but it will be even worse for you if you get a 2.2

Most of the comments about people doing ok on a 2:2 are from a while ago, it just isn't the same now, the jobs market is far more competitive and there are loads more people getting 2:1s
Of course experience counts for far more, but everyone seems to be completely forgetting that most big graduate employers will auto filter out CVs with anything less than a 2:i no matter how much experience they have.
Reply 62
Original post by Aquinas
Haha, that is a very weird fluctuation. What degree are you reading?

73% in your first year is very good - extremely hard to keep that up if you're a history/politics student like me haha. I wrote an essay which the tutor couldn't find a point for me to improve on and yet was still only given a 74! Suppose it depends on who you've got marking which is a bit annoying.

Reckon I'll end up with an average of around 66-68% in the end. Maybe higher if I do well in my exams.


I'm studying Business & Management at Aston. I know what you mean, I think generally qualitative is considerably harder to get high marks on the quantitative. I usually find myself in the low 60s on qualitative work and in the 80s+ in quantitative areas. I likewise will probably find myself in the mid to high 60s (damn that 2nd year!), but to be honest as long as I secure that 2.1 I'm happy enough.
Why bother? Because it's education and rewarding. I wasn't born to drink all the time and be a lazy sh**.
Reply 64
Original post by M1011
I'm studying Business & Management at Aston. I know what you mean, I think generally qualitative is considerably harder to get high marks on the quantitative. I usually find myself in the low 60s on qualitative work and in the 80s+ in quantitative areas. I likewise will probably find myself in the mid to high 60s (damn that 2nd year!), but to be honest as long as I secure that 2.1 I'm happy enough.


Not bad, not bad! That second year has messed your grades about a bit annoyingly. I better make sure that doesn't happen to me. Got my heart set on the very elite universities for postgrad so I've got to get myself a 1:1.

2:1 is definitely the minimum mark everyone should be aiming for, contrary to the debate in this thread in my opinion. I haven't yet come across a graduate programme which asks for less than a 2:1. If there was, I'd be questioning whether it would be worth applying for to be honest!
Reply 65
2:2 here. Spent more time smoking pot and exploring philosophy and the classics than actually studying. Ended up applying to an internship with UK DfID in my final year. Worked there for a few months (in Nepal), then at a commodity brokers. Went back to the same uni. Currently on a Distinction. Graduate job in high finance secured (with multiple Times top 100 graduate job offers). Keep grafting.


I'd say experience was key though. Didn't help to have another line on top off my CV to.

My 2:2 was ironically the best thing that could have happened to me. It's the supreme motivation.
Reply 66
Original post by Aquinas
Not bad, not bad! That second year has messed your grades about a bit annoyingly. I better make sure that doesn't happen to me. Got my heart set on the very elite universities for postgrad so I've got to get myself a 1:1.

2:1 is definitely the minimum mark everyone should be aiming for, contrary to the debate in this thread in my opinion. I haven't yet come across a graduate programme which asks for less than a 2:1. If there was, I'd be questioning whether it would be worth applying for to be honest!


Likewise I think a 2.1 is very important. I looked through a lot of graduate schemes back a few months ago when I was applying and in my experience nearly every good scheme asked for a 2.1.

I only came across one that I can remember that accepted a 2.2, Unilever. Interesting given it actually looked like a very good scheme and is of course a very respectable company. Not sure why they opted for 2.2, but they were the only one I recall coming across.
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.


It matters for jobs which require you to use your brain. Try getting anywhere in the legal profession with a 2.2. Not impossible, but not far off.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 68
Original post by M1011
Likewise I think a 2.1 is very important. I looked through a lot of graduate schemes back a few months ago when I was applying and in my experience nearly every good scheme asked for a 2.1.

I only came across one that I can remember that accepted a 2.2, Unilever. Interesting given it actually looked like a very good scheme and is of course a very respectable company. Not sure why they opted for 2.2, but they were the only one I recall coming across.


Hmm, that is quite interesting actually. Maybe they wanted to access a wider 'talent pool' as it were. Or maybe the academic requirements weren't so strenuous for it who knows!

How did you get on with your applications by the way if you don't mind me asking?
Reply 69
Original post by M1011

I only came across one that I can remember that accepted a 2.2, Unilever. Interesting given it actually looked like a very good scheme and is of course a very respectable company. Not sure why they opted for 2.2, but they were the only one I recall coming across.


There's quite a few (I should know). And Unilever opted for 2.2 because they see no real distinction between the 2.1 and 2.2 category obviously, and place more emphasis on intangible skills and work experience.

It's actually one of the highest paid graduate schemes around. Received an offer from them ~31k p/a as they pay a premium for people with Masters/PhDs.
Reply 70
Original post by TurboCretin
It matters for jobs which require you to use your brain. Try getting anywhere in the legal profession with a 2.2. Not impossible, but not far off.


For some of the regionals the requirement is actually quite low in terms of A-Levels achieved (one I saw amazingly asked for BBB or its equivalent in UCAS points), but I don't think I've seen any that ask for less than 2:1 at degree level. So yeah, think you'd be right in saying that.
Reply 71
Original post by Aquinas
Hmm, that is quite interesting actually. Maybe they wanted to access a wider 'talent pool' as it were. Or maybe the academic requirements weren't so strenuous for it who knows!

How did you get on with your applications by the way if you don't mind me asking?


Pretty well, got a couple (IBM / JLR) but went for Deloitte in the end. Just need that 2.1 now :tongue:
Reply 72
Original post by M1011
Pretty well, got a couple (IBM / JLR) but went for Deloitte in the end. Just need that 2.1 now :tongue:


Good going fella. Good luck with it.
Reply 73
Original post by Regent
There's quite a few (I should know). And Unilever opted for 2.2 because they see no real distinction between the 2.1 and 2.2 category obviously, and place more emphasis on intangible skills and work experience.

It's actually one of the highest paid graduate schemes around. Received an offer from them ~31k p/a as they pay a premium for people with Masters/PhDs.


Good to know, I might be mailing you for a list depending on how finals turn out :smile:

No offence to you intended, but you said yourself the reason for your 2.2 was a lack of effort (well, herbal substances). Is it not fair to say that a 2.1 generally reflects a higher level of effort then a 2.2? You're kinda proof of that, given you got a 2.2 then went on to your masters, put in some effort and have ended up on a distinction (congrats btw). Obviously those other things you mentioned such as work experience are very important, but is it not fair to say that there will be plenty of 2.1 students with strong work experience etc? If a company is going to specifically require a degree, I don't really see why they don't insist on someone who has performed well in that degree. It kind of seems to defeat the point of it doesn't it?

I have a theory that it may be exactly because it makes sense to demand a 2.1 (reduce applications and better general standard), that some companies choose to go against the trend and ask for a 2.2. Perhaps those companies recognise an opportunity to snatch up the best 2.2 candidates who may be very good applicants but just missed the grade for whatever reason, even if it means filtering through a lot of applications. After all how many of those times top 100 grad schemes take less then a 2.1? Not many. Therefore stands to reason you might find a fair few gems if you're willing to burrow through all the 2.2 applications and you'll probably have the pick of the bunch as you aren't competing with the other 2.1 companies for them. I assume they probably double there apps by accepting 2.2s. Just a theory!

Congrats on the offer, where is it you accepted in the end? I'm sure I've read it on some thread or other, but I can't recall.
I guess it depends what you want to do. Most Masters expect a 2:1 and PhDs and they certainly help with future careers (can't do what I want to do without one unless you get very lucky with experience and know people who know people).
Reply 75
My older brother went to Gloucestershire university to study public relations and is expecting a 2:2/2:1. Neither is an amazing University or degree. He isn't that most academically able in the whole world but he gets involved in so much. He has a pretty big blogging website, has worked in radio, promoted websites, magazines etc... he beat odds of 1/53 in getting an internship at Microsoft and is now applying for graduate schemes and getting many interviews.

My Uncle got a 2:2 and is now head of pricing for the largest advertising company in the world. He is a millionaire.
Original post by T-Toe
Due to the country's economic climate,a vast majority of companies go by a process of elimination. If you don't cut the mustard you're out. It's better to be safe than sorry.


Where that process of elimination is by work experience. It costs a lot of money to train someone up and no company is going to go for the unknown entity over the one with a proven track record regardless of degree classification.


Oh so I suppose 2:2 graduates are more likely to bare these qualities? :rolleyes:


We don't know that, which is why interviews exist so that employers can better determine who has the qualities that they are looking for.


You're acting as if the your first job is completely insignificant/irrelevant. The first job is probably your most important job as it's the foundation to any higher positions you may have in future.


Where am I suggesting that? People are getting excellent first jobs with excellent career prospects with 2:2s.


You're seriously deluded if you think employers don't give a damn about your degree classification.


Just talking from experience.

Original post by M1011
Be honest. Was it an oil refinery? :biggrin:

No I'm joking, you're right of course, a degree classification is far from the most important thing. I'm surprised that 2.2 candidates stood out from 1st candidates though (an individuals absolutely, but as a group I find it surprising), as generally speaking I would have thought 1st students would show greater commitment and work ethic (perhaps misconceived). Was there something about the organisation that made it fit the generic 2.2 candidate over the generic 1st? Very laid back perhaps? Again I may be generalising. Possibly it was just the particular way that crop of student applicants were!

To be clear, I don't have a 1st, I'm just interested is all.


I think you're looking too much into things. It just so happened that the people with 2:2s were better able to demonstrate that they'd fit into the organisation than the others. I don't think anyone was asked about their degree classification - the only reason I know is because many people that got offers are on my course and who I know are probably going to get 2:2s.
Reply 77
Original post by M1011
Good to know, I might be mailing you for a list depending on how finals turn out :smile:

No offence to you intended, but you said yourself the reason for your 2.2 was a lack of effort (well, herbal substances). Is it not fair to say that a 2.1 generally reflects a higher level of effort then a 2.2? You're kinda proof of that, given you got a 2.2 then went on to your masters, put in some effort and have ended up on a distinction (congrats btw). Obviously those other things you mentioned such as work experience are very important, but is it not fair to say that there will be plenty of 2.1 students with strong work experience etc? If a company is going to specifically require a degree, I don't really see why they don't insist on someone who has performed well in that degree. It kind of seems to defeat the point of it doesn't it?

I have a theory that it may be exactly because it makes sense to demand a 2.1 (reduce applications and better general standard), that some companies choose to go against the trend and ask for a 2.2. Perhaps those companies recognise an opportunity to snatch up the best 2.2 candidates who may be very good applicants but just missed the grade for whatever reason, even if it means filtering through a lot of applications. After all how many of those times top 100 grad schemes take less then a 2.1? Not many. Therefore stands to reason you might find a fair few gems if you're willing to burrow through all the 2.2 applications and you'll probably have the pick of the bunch as you aren't competing with the other 2.1 companies for them. I assume they probably double there apps by accepting 2.2s. Just a theory!

Congrats on the offer, where is it you accepted in the end? I'm sure I've read it on some thread or other, but I can't recall.


Big 4 offer, London. Same as yourself I believe. And i agree that a 2.2 degree generally (but not always) demonstrates either a lack of intelligence (in relation to your peers) or a lack of effort.

I think the reason some employers are bucking the 2.1 trend is because they realise a lot of good graduates don't always manage to get 2.1s due mainly to the intensity of their course (Imperial degrees are an example of this).

Your theory has credibility. JLR received over 13,000 applications.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Callum828
And how exactly does one get experience? You apply to jobs and internships, which you then get passed over for because you have a 2:2.


Many jobs and internships aren't interested in degree classification though.


And degree classification has to do with how smart you are and how hard you work at university. I would imagine that both things might have some teeny tiny bearing on how you do in the working world. Don't you?


Not really. Degree classification is mainly based on cramming before major deadlines and exams. Not much to do with consistently turning up on time and actually being someone that people would like to work with.
Of course having a degree of any classification will alow you to access higher paid jobs than an individual who never went to university. However for the top level jobs a 2:1 plus is fairly vital. Also after several years of work and a large amount of debt surely it is worth putting in the work to get the better class of degree at the end. :smile:

Quick Reply

Latest