[Catlikemuffin]

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.

[Tushar9]

(Original post by M1011)
Most people are in education (well, university level education) for the job prospects.




Your uni gives ABCD grades? Is it a 'real' university?

How do you think anyone could ever work out what you are on or what your chances are from that?



Surely the logical effect would be the exact opposite of this? Employers aren't hard pressed to find top talent, top talent is hard pressed to find jobs.

yeah of course it is. its not in the top list but it's one of the reputed uni. for engineering. Its Brunel University. And I am doing Bsc Honors in International Business Management.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
Really? I would have thought that, especially in these days, competition would be even tougher and employers would give even more preferencial treatment to Oxbridge graduates.

Out of interest how did you manage to get in with AAB A levels? Not bashing, just curious

The Oxbridge name counts for a lot in law and investment banking and maybe one or two other things but otherwise a 2.2 is still a 2.2 when it comes to automatic filters, etc

Various reasons but mainly that I really impressed them at the interviews and with my written work. The tutor at my college really liked me. So when I missed the grades (by literally 1%), they were quite forgiving

[Pindar]

(Original post by Silver Arrow)
How did he achieve all that with a third?

Because believe it or not you can still achieve what you want in life despite a little number on a piece of paper.

Grades literally mean nothing ultimately. I've seen stupid people who couldn't tie their own shoe laces manage to get good grades. They just stop functioning as a normal person and spend all day memorising details, without ever actually understanding the repercussions of them properly and never using them for anything useful in life and developing as person.

Things such as social skills and communications skills are essential for making it in life in many areas. There's much less use for someone who can manage to string together a few essays and reference them but cannot work in a team, master the art of persuasion, without drive, understand people, the consumer and society or lead people. Common things which businesses really needs in people but a degree does not necessarily measure. A 2:1 degree does not necessarily mean you're a well rounded individual. If you think a 2:1 by itself is going to somehow guarantee some sort of employment and a somewhat good quality of life, you would be seriously misguided. So many people with degrees are out there working menial jobs. And half the successful people out there don't have any qualifications.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Smack)
Many jobs and internships aren't interested in degree classification though.



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.

1. Which jobs and internships? Because given how overapplied they are these days, even the most modest jobs are gonna need some way to thin the pile of CVs.

2. That's not even remotely true. I'm the consumate crammer, and yet I can only get a low 2:1. The reason being that you need to be both very smart, and/or consistently diligent throughout the year to get a 1st.

I suppose that A level results are all about cramming and have no predictive quality about how you'll do at uni, right? Oxford should just let everyone in, since exams are meaningless.

If degree classification was meaningless, then employers wouldn't use it as a method to screen potential employees. However they do, and I assure you that they know a lot more about recruitment, who makes a good employee and the working world than either of us.

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
The Oxbridge name counts for a lot in law and investment banking and maybe one or two other things but otherwise a 2.2 is still a 2.2 when it comes to automatic filters, etc

Various reasons but mainly that I really impressed them at the interviews and with my written work. The tutor at my college really liked me. So when I missed the grades (by literally 1%), they were quite forgiving

oh that's good. i was merely wondering because i got the same grades. but my predicted grades were much worse so i couldnt have applied.

[The_Lonely_Goatherd]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
oh that's good. i was merely wondering because i got the same grades. but my predicted grades were much worse so i couldnt have applied.

Tbh they don't usually let in people who miss the grades. I was very lucky

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd)
Tbh they don't usually let in people who miss the grades. I was very lucky

well they must have been really impressed with you.

[Smack]

(Original post by Callum828)
1. Which jobs and internships? Because given how overapplied they are these days, even the most modest jobs are gonna need some way to thin the pile of CVs.

Ones in energy and oil.

2. That's not even remotely true. I'm the consumate crammer, and yet I can only get a low 2:1. The reason being that you need to be both very smart, and/or consistently diligent throughout the year to get a 1st.

I know many crammers that are on track for firsts, so you're wrong.

I suppose that A level results are all about cramming and have no predictive quality about how you'll do at uni, right? Oxford should just let everyone in, since exams are meaningless.

That's a straw-man. I don't know anything about A-levels anyway since I didn't do them.

If degree classification was meaningless, then employers wouldn't use it as a method to screen potential employees. However they do, and I assure you that they know a lot more about recruitment, who makes a good employee and the working world than either of us.

Many employers don't use it as a method of weeding out applications, as I have been saying in this thread giving examples from people on my course and myself. Some do, and I didn't say otherwise, and it probably varies from sector to sector too.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
.

How'd the exam go?

[wanderlust.xx]

(Original post by hassi94)
How'd the exam go?

Haha, thanks for asking! Well I thought I did alright, probably managed a first but a little cheesed off I didn't work harder for this module. I got complacent and worked more for my other modules. Have a Quantum 2 exam tomorrow for which we have no papers, just problem sheets.

I guess I'm glad I have exams, since it might be the last time I feel like I'm clever before I hit the working world and realise I'm totally unemployable... although if this thread is an indication (and I'm not sure it is, since the majority of posters have just been speculating on hearsay) I shouldn't be worrying.

[Intriguing Alias]

(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
Haha, thanks for asking! Well I thought I did alright, probably managed a first but a little cheesed off I didn't work harder for this module. I got complacent and worked more for my other modules. Have a Quantum 2 exam tomorrow for which we have no papers, just problem sheets.

I guess I'm glad I have exams, since it might be the last time I feel like I'm clever before I hit the working world and realise I'm totally unemployable... although if this thread is an indication (and I'm not sure it is, since the majority of posters have just been speculating on hearsay) I shouldn't be worrying.

That's good. I wouldn't worry too much now - try and nail the rest I guess Aha I guess that's one way to spin exams Did you not want to become an Actuary? If so then surely that IS the kind of career where degree classification matters (as your ability in maths is actually important ).

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Smack)
Many employers don't use it as a method of weeding out applications, as I have been saying in this thread giving examples from people on my course and myself. Some do, and I didn't say otherwise, and it probably varies from sector to sector too.

Somebody quoted here that 3/4 use it as a screening process. Just because a small amount don't, does not negate the large amount that do. Clearly, grades matter.

[wanderlust.xx]

(Original post by hassi94)
That's good. I wouldn't worry too much now - try and nail the rest I guess Aha I guess that's one way to spin exams Did you not want to become an Actuary? If so then surely that IS the kind of career where degree classification matters (as your ability in maths is actually important ).

God knows if I'm good enough at maths to be an actuary. There's plenty hopping on from Cambridge and Warwick and struggling with it, kind of wondering if it's worth it. I'd probably have a go I guess.

Well I think getting a graduate scheme anywhere is excruciating (even in actuarial work), and since the minimum requirement to go for the exams is a B at A level I doubt anything above a 2:1 in a mathematical discipline really helps much, so that must be a minimum requirement and I assume the rest is down to personality, experience, determination and everything else that only comes across at an interview.

I guess I'll see once I graduate. Long way to go yet, two exams, graduation and a heck of a lot of fun inbetween.

[Alpharius]

The only things that matter to employer's is that you can apply yourself to learn, and that you have relevent experience.

[*Rouge*]

This is not what I need to hear the day before an exam when I really can't be bothered to study.

[thetobbit]

(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...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.

Same as most things in life, if you work hard and are dedicated, you'll suceed no matter what. (usually lol)

[Smack]

(Original post by Callum828)
Somebody quoted here that 3/4 use it as a screening process. Just because a small amount don't, does not negate the large amount that do. Clearly, grades matter.

Where did they quote it from?

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Smack)
Where did they quote it from?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012...on-landing-job


Delegates at the Graduate AnswerTime event, hosted by the Association of Graduate Recruiters (AGR), Bernard Hodes Group and Totaljobs.com, heard that around three-quarters of large graduate employers – a proportion that has risen significantly in the past two years – routinely use the 2:1 to sift out applications. But despite that, most employers say they have little faith in the integrity of the classification.

The Hear report is welcomed by the AGR, despite its chief executive, Carl Gilleard, admitting that 75% of its member organisations now use the 2:1 as their primary screening tool. He said this had risen from around 66% during the last two years, simply because it is a legal way of reducing the volume of applications. "Last year there was an average of 83 applications for each job," Gilleard said. "Employers have to find a way of getting them down to manageable numbers.

[tehforum]

Simple. if employers sift at 2:1, say you've got a 2:1. Noone will check, and if they do, you will have been interviewed by then.

- comments

What a dumbass.