[M1011]

(Original post by Tushar9)
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.

Oh, never heard anyone refer to ABC grades at university before. Is A 70, B 60, C 50?

Also - without marks it is still impossible to work out your average

[Smack]

(Original post by Callum828)
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.

Okay, so that's 75% of an overall unknown percentage of the total amount of businesses and organisations out there recruiting graduates.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Smack)
Okay, so that's 75% of an overall unknown percentage of the total amount of businesses and organisations out there recruiting graduates.

You're grasping at straws here dude.

[Smack]

(Original post by Callum828)
You're grasping at straws here dude.

Are you honestly suggesting that you think that the membership of the AGR is representative of every graduate recruiter? I hope you're not planning to limit your search for graduate employment to these employers.

[wanderlust.xx]

(Original post by Smack)
Are you honestly suggesting that you think that the membership of the AGR is representative of every graduate recruiter? I hope you're not planning to limit your search for graduate employment to these employers.

That looks like a pretty massive list. Perhaps not in comparison to all recruiters everywhere, but a hefty list nonetheless.

[blueray]

That's why you should aim for a first with honors

[Smack]

(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
That looks like a pretty massive list. Perhaps not in comparison to all recruiters everywhere, but a hefty list nonetheless.

Really, you think it's massive, despite the fact that 77 of the members are universities? Hell my sector is barely represented on that list and employs about 450,000 people in the UK.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Smack)
Are you honestly suggesting that you think that the membership of the AGR is representative of every graduate recruiter? I hope you're not planning to limit your search for graduate employment to these employers.

http://www.mysalary.co.uk/largest-uk-employers.php

Those are the largest employers in the UK

Of the top 30 employers in that list, 28 of them are AGR members. The only ones that aren't are Serco and 'Local Government', which obviously isn't listed as a single employer. However both employers do demand 2:1s for their graduate schemes nonetheless. Checking the bottom of the list we can still see that most companies listed are represented by AGR, but since you're so sure that AGR is unrepresentative, feel free to look further and disprove me.

In answer to your question, we're not talking about me limiting myself. We're talking about 2:1 being a cutoff point for HR departments. And if 75% of most of the graduate recruiters in the country treat it as a cutoff point, then YES IT ****ING MATTERS WHETHER YOU GET ONE OR NOT. Especially since the 2:1 cutoff isn't some arbitrary rule adopted by AGR and AGR only. As the article I posted earlier said, it's one of the few legal ways that employers can thin a pile of 100 applications without reading each one individually. And since graduate under/unemployment is at an all time high, it's reasonable to expect that other employers do the same, since they are all suffering from more applications than in the past.

I don't see why you are so unwilling to admit that what grade you get in university has ANY effect on whether you get a job or not. Of course it bloody does!

[ForKicks]

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

Or he is over 30 and existed in a totally different graduate job market..

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.

How old is this 3rd class degree guy, really?

As a note, most of my family repeated what you said long before I started uni, that the degree class doesn't matter as much as how you act. Now ALL employers in my family have changed their tune and say they limit it to 2:1+ because otherwise the application process would take too long. The massive competition means that employers who would normally give a 2:2 candidate a chance to prove themselves no longer do. Time is money and so they cut the process where they can.

[Smack]

(Original post by Callum828)
http://www.mysalary.co.uk/largest-uk-employers.php

Those are the largest employers in the UK

Of the top 30 employers in that list, 28 of them are AGR members. The only ones that aren't are Serco and 'Local Government', which obviously isn't listed as a single employer. However both employers do demand 2:1s for their graduate schemes nonetheless. Checking the bottom of the list we can still see that most companies listed are represented by AGR, but since you're so sure that AGR is unrepresentative, feel free to look further and disprove me.

In answer to your question, we're not talking about me limiting myself. We're talking about 2:1 being a cutoff point for HR departments. And if 75% of most of the graduate recruiters in the country treat it as a cutoff point, then YES IT ****ING MATTERS WHETHER YOU GET ONE OR NOT.

What I'm saying is clearly going over your head.

Obviously many of the largest employers are also members of the AGR as the largest employers usually recruit the most graduates and companies looking to recruit a large amount of graduates are more likely to be members of a body for employers looking to recruit a lot of graduates i.e. the AGR.

But the largest employers are not most employers; it's the other way around: there are some large employers and a great many smaller employers and as far as I am aware there are no statistics on whether these, the majority of companies where the majority of graduates will actually work, care about things such as degree classification.

For a start, that'd be impossible anyway since there is likely a great many jobs that are not publicly advertised, and lets also not forget the power of the speculative application either.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Smack)
What I'm saying is clearly going over your head.

Obviously many of the largest employers are also members of the AGR as the largest employers usually recruit the most graduates and companies looking to recruit a large amount of graduates are more likely to be members of a body for employers looking to recruit a lot of graduates i.e. the AGR.

But the largest employers are not most employers; it's the other way around: there are some large employers and a great many smaller employers and as far as I am aware there are no statistics on whether these, the majority of companies where the majority of graduates will actually work, care about things such as degree classification.

For a start, that'd be impossible anyway since there is likely a great many jobs that are not publicly advertised, and lets also not forget the power of the speculative application either.

Dude, don't be patronising. I'm fully aware of what you're saying. But let's say, hypothetically, that you are a small or medium-sized business advertising a grad job in an overcrowded market. You receive 50 or so CVs. How are you going to trim the pile? Or even if you receive 10 CVs and can read through each one individually, and you come down to several with similarly impressive work experience. Will you take the one with a high 2:1 or the one with a low 2:2?

Please remember that I'm not arguing that degree classification is the only thing that matters. Literally nobody is arguing that. What you are arguing, however, is that it doesn't matter. And to be honest, it just seems like you're in it for the sake of having the last word, because I don't think anybody can really, logically believe that.

[Regent]

(Original post by Callum828)
Dude, don't be patronising. I'm fully aware of what you're saying. But let's say, hypothetically, that you are a small or medium-sized business advertising a grad job in an overcrowded market. You receive 50 or so CVs. How are you going to trim the pile? Or even if you receive 10 CVs and can read through each one individually, and you come down to several with similarly impressive work experience. Will you take the one with a high 2:1 or the one with a low 2:2?

Please remember that I'm not arguing that degree classification is the only thing that matters. Literally nobody is arguing that. What you are arguing, however, is that it doesn't matter. And to be honest, it just seems like you're in it for the sake of having the last word, because I don't think anybody can really, logically believe that.

He isn't saying a 2.1 doesn't matter. What he's arguing is that there are many employers who don't make a significant distinction between a 2.2 and a 2.1 or 1.1.


Unilever
Government
Network Rail
Kerry Group
Babcock
Siemens
Toyota
London Finance
Smith & Williamson
Towers Watson
RWEnpower
First Actuarial
BG Group
Nestle
RWE S&T
EDF Energy
Jaguar Land Rover
HMRC
Arcadia
Centrica
Debenhams
Shell
Mercer & Hole
Jackson Stephen LLP
Stagecoach
Airbus
P&G
Ford
Amey
Civil Service
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Procter & Gamble
Scottish Power
Chevron
Nationwide


All accept 2.2s

[Smack]

(Original post by Callum828)
Dude, don't be patronising. I'm fully aware of what you're saying. But let's say, hypothetically, that you are a small or medium-sized business advertising a grad job in an overcrowded market. You receive 50 or so CVs. How are you going to trim the pile? Or even if you receive 10 CVs and can read through each one individually, and you come down to several with similarly impressive work experience. Will you take the one with a high 2:1 or the one with a low 2:2?.

What I would do is this. Firstly, I'd discard all CVs without previous work experience of some sort - it doesn't have to be relevant, although that'd help, but they'd have to have some sort of evidence that they could turn up on time, dressed appropriately and function in an actual business environment.

Then once the initial trimming was done I'd consider the skills and qualities needed to perform the job and score the candidates numerically on how well their CV demonstrates that they can meet the requirements. I'd interview the top X, where X depends on how long the interviews were to last and how much time I had to conduct interviews, and whoever impresses the most from that interview would get the job.

I'd also strongly prefer someone with a relevant degree, too, although the importance of this would depend on the role - for some it'd be paramount, for others it wouldn't matter as much.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by Regent)
He isn't saying a 2.1 doesn't matter. What he's arguing is that there are many employers who don't make a significant distinction between a 2.2 and a 2.1 or 1.1.


Unilever
Government
Network Rail
Kerry Group
Babcock
Siemens
Toyota
London Finance
Smith & Williamson
Towers Watson
RWEnpower
First Actuarial
BG Group
Nestle
RWE S&T
EDF Energy
Jaguar Land Rover
HMRC
Arcadia
Centrica
Debenhams
Shell
Mercer & Hole
Jackson Stephen LLP
Stagecoach
Airbus
P&G
Ford
Amey
Civil Service
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Procter & Gamble
Scottish Power
Chevron
Nationwide


All accept 2.2s

There's a big difference between technically accepting a 2:2 and not making a significant distinction based on it. I highly doubt that any HR departments don't use it to trim the pile, or indeed take it into account.

In fact, Smack's original point was that the grade one gets at university has nothing to do with how you work in the real world. Which is obviously ridiculous.

P.S. Googled a few of the companies you posted, 90% of them are asking for 2:1s. I think the thread that you got that list from is a bit out of date (the job market has changed since 2010). The only ones that are offered to 2:2 grads seem to be engineering ones, probably due to the lack of engineers in the UK.

[Regent]

(Original post by Callum828)
There's a big difference between technically accepting a 2:2 and not making a significant distinction based on it. I highly doubt that any HR departments don't use it to trim the pile, or indeed take it into account.

In fact, Smack's original point was that the grade one gets at university has nothing to do with how you work in the real world. Which is obviously ridiculous.

P.S. Googled a few of the companies you posted, 90% of them are asking for 2:1s. I think the thread that you got that list from is a bit out of date (the job market has changed since 2010). The only ones that are offered to 2:2 grads seem to be engineering ones, probably due to the lack of engineers in the UK.

Wrong. All accept 2.2s or 2.2s with relevant Msc.

Edit: And if I add the list of 'strict 2.1' vacancies that accepted 2.2 applicants it gets even bigger and some would surprise you, for example Citigroup Sales & Trading. Yes. Citigroup the Global Investment Bank.

[Regent]

(Original post by Smack)
What I would do is this. Firstly, I'd discard all CVs without previous work experience of some sort - it doesn't have to be relevant, although that'd help, but they'd have to have some sort of evidence that they could turn up on time, dressed appropriately and function in an actual business environment.

Then once the initial trimming was done I'd consider the skills and qualities needed to perform the job and score the candidates numerically on how well their CV demonstrates that they can meet the requirements. I'd interview the top X, where X depends on how long the interviews were to last and how much time I had to conduct interviews, and whoever impresses the most from that interview would get the job.

I'd also strongly prefer someone with a relevant degree, too, although the importance of this would depend on the role - for some it'd be paramount, for others it wouldn't matter as much.

Having spoken to various HR I can confirm that this is very similar to what they actually do. The operate on a points system and they allocate points, according to say work experience, degree grade, university, subject relevance, extracurriculars, demonstrations of leadership, etc.

A lot of people in this thread are going to be very surprised if they think the world suddenly opens up to them once they have a 2.1.

[Irrelevance]

(Original post by wanderlust.xx)
Having read this article though, perhaps I should never have bothered.

2.1's and above open up a lot more doors whereas a 2.2 feels like it limits your options. In the end, if you're good at your job and make good decisions most people really don't give a **** what you got at university. You could a have first and be dire, you might not even have a degree and be brilliant. Degree class isn't directly related to how good you are at a job.

[iSMark]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
exactly. my 2:2 from Kent would not count the same as a 2:2 from oxford.

but a 2.1 from kent, I just don't know how to call it. So many other factors.

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Irrelevance)
2.1's and above open up a lot more doors whereas a 2.2 feels like it limits your options. In the end, if you're good at your job and make good decisions most people really don't give a **** what you got at university. You could a have first and be dire, you might not even have a degree and be brilliant. Degree class isn't directly related to how good you are at a job.

I agree, it is pretty much a foot in the door thing and the higher on the ladder you can get as a graduate the better.