[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by Callum828)
But then surely cutting the number of universities is a good thing?

how could it be a good thing?? there would be more students at each university if half of them were shut down. your logic makes no sense.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
how could it be a good thing?? there would be more students at each university if half of them were shut down. your logic makes no sense.

Well since I stated earlier that I favour a reduction in student numbers, it makes perfect sense. Fewer students need fewer universities, the crap ones shut down. Did you really think I was advocating shutting down universities with the same amount of students?

[Graduate Recruitment Bureau]

Having been a graduate with a 2:2 and now working in graduate recruitment for 15 years I can see both sides. A 2:2 isn't the end of the world - there are recruiters who will take you on - and certainly, in my case, it drove me on to prove it didn't matter by setting up my own company and making my mark.

Recruiters on the other hand could, it is argued, be deemed lazy by sifting out applicants if they don't meet a flaky benchmark which, in many cases, starts with a 2:1. Due to the high number of applicants they have to draw the line somewhere and also because they actually value a 2:1 as a marker of academic rigour. The problem is a 2:1 is a floating measure which differs from university by university and what is needed is a more in depth assessment or matrix that can create a level playing field. I'm sure many recruiters have smarter recruitment systems now that at first sift look at a variety of skills or qualifications but ultimately when in context with the current supply/demand of graduates, recruiters can still can call the shots. Take hope in the fact that a new record of achievement, the HEAR, is being adopted by many Universities that will at least give students the opportunity to demonstrate other achievements and skills gained whilst at Uni thus creating some balance with the academic which employers will recognise.

[Llamageddon]

Graduate schemes account for a small fraction of graduate employment. It's more about the skills + experience you have and the contacts you've made than anything else.

edit: oh, and your attitude.

[M1011]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
Graduate schemes account for a small fraction of graduate employment. It's more about the skills + experience you have and the contacts you've made than anything else.

edit: oh, and your attitude.

Graduate schemes are also, for many, the ideal outcome of a degree. So even if it is a small fraction (I have no idea on the numbers), it's an important fraction.

The whole contacts thing is very subjective as well. For some I'm sure that's important, for many I'm sure they have no contacts whatsoever at the place the end up working.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by M1011)
Graduate schemes are also, for many, the ideal outcome of a degree. So even if it is a small fraction (I have no idea on the numbers), it's an important fraction.

The whole contacts thing is very subjective as well. For some I'm sure that's important, for many I'm sure they have no contacts whatsoever at the place the end up working.

It's was ~10% back in 2010. Doubt it's changed much.

The mammoth share is taken up by accountancy and professions similar to it which really skews the result. If you want to be a solicitor, accountant, actuary or something like that then a 2:i is pretty important. If you don't then in all likeliness you're going to be looking for a "graduate vacancy" or just an entry level job instead.

[M1011]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
It's was ~10% back in 2010. Doubt it's changed much.

The mammoth share is taken up by accountancy and professions similar to it which really skews the result. If you want to be a solicitor, accountant, actuary or something like that then a 2:i is pretty important. If you don't then in all likeliness you're going to be looking for a "graduate vacancy" or just an entry level job instead.

Practically every big company recruits through a graduate scheme as well though. I recognise that small companies are a larger market on the whole, but if you want to get into large multinational corporations I still think it's pretty important to get a good degree as most (not all) will filter you out below a 2.1. Those businesses offer a huge variety of roles.

But to take this back on topic, I think it's fair to say that if you do a degree, aim for a 2.1 minimum. Sure there are jobs out there which will take lower, and sure there are success stories, but on average you're just limiting your opportunities if you don't get a 2.1. Conversely, getting a first hardly seems worth the effort, 2.1 seems to be the important boundary.

[Llamageddon]

But to take this back on topic, I think it's fair to say that if you do a degree, aim for a 2.1 minimum. Sure there are jobs out there which will take lower, and sure there are success stories, but on average you're just limiting your opportunities if you don't get a 2.1. Conversely, getting a first hardly seems worth the effort, 2.1 seems to be the important boundary.

I wouldn't have been given funding for my masters without a first and the same is increasingly true of phd funding. Given that I'm just being intentionally irritating now I'm going to go ahead and state that more people go onto funded post-grad work than graduate schemes, and that the jobs at the end are typically more stable with better prospects.

You should always aim for the best you can realistically get and bashing yourself up if you don't get a 2:i is daft. Graduate schemes that don't lead to professional qualifications have huge drop-out rates and constitute a tiny proportion of graduate employment. It's NOT the end of the world.

[anthonyfl]

I'd say it depends on the subject but my sister's boyfriend says his friend will lose his job if he doesn't get at least a 2:1. (Electronics and Electrical Engineering honours degree)


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[anthonyfl]

(Original post by Callum828)
Well since I stated earlier that I favour a reduction in student numbers, it makes perfect sense. Fewer students need fewer universities, the crap ones shut down. Did you really think I was advocating shutting down universities with the same amount of students?

Exactly! There's so many colleges which have been turned into "universities." Really they are just glorified colleges with poor degrees and employability prospects which are awful.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Regent]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
Given that I'm just being intentionally irritating now I'm going to go ahead and state that more people go onto funded post-grad work than graduate schemes, and that the jobs at the end are typically more stable with better prospects.

This part cannot be true. Maybe post grads in general but certainly not funded. Also a large majority of PhD students end up in Academia.

[M1011]

(Original post by Llamageddon)
I wouldn't have been given funding for my masters without a first and the same is increasingly true of phd funding. Given that I'm just being intentionally irritating now I'm going to go ahead and state that more people go onto funded post-grad work than graduate schemes, and that the jobs at the end are typically more stable with better prospects.

You should always aim for the best you can realistically get and bashing yourself up if you don't get a 2:i is daft. Graduate schemes that don't lead to professional qualifications have huge drop-out rates and constitute a tiny proportion of graduate employment. It's NOT the end of the world.

Well as you've decided to be intentionally irritation I shall concoct a response

As above said, funded post-grads? I think not. But yes if you're going to continue on to a masters / phd then of course the rules change, but my impression was this thread is more aimed at leaving university with a bachelors.

More stable? I don't really see where you get this from. Better prospects? Perhaps, I can't really say.

I'd have thought that graduate schemes that lead to professional qualifications probably have the higher drop out rate, whereas those that don't usually focus on rotating you around the business and moving you towards management positions? I'd be interested to hear what you based this on

[Lamps08]

(Original post by anaplian)
If reading that article caused you to question your 'entire belief system' then i'm not entirely sure you should be at university in the first place.

quality, ahaha

[Mbob]

(Original post by Regent)
This part cannot be true. Maybe post grads in general but certainly not funded. Also a large majority of PhD students end up in Academia.

It might be true for some subjects, particularly something like physics where maybe 30% will go on to do a PhD.

[Lamps08]

(Original post by MrHappy_J)
oh wow thanks for this completely revolutionary post All this time I thought it had something to do with my depression, or dyslexia, or having a lower than average IQ, but no, it turns out I'm just lazy. Thanks! I'll stay up all night and aim right for a first. I won't accept anything less now that you've made me realise the underlying cause behind my bad marks, you've changed my life forever!

That's why doctors provide anti-depressants, that's why whoever it is gives you free computers/software whilst Uni's provide you with extra time and better conditions for the exams. I personally haven't done an IQ test but I wouldn't take it's result too seriously. I've looked at the reasoning tests for a lot of Grad-jobs and they're all a piece of piss. The fact is, you can practice at them and get better (I did), so It can't be a true measure of one's innate intelligence, surely.
As an employer a 1st class would simply tell me the applicant is a very hard worker, most likely a social outcast. That is all xx

[MrHappy_J]

(Original post by Lamps08)
That's why doctors provide anti-depressants, that's why whoever it is gives you free computers/software whilst Uni's provide you with extra time and better conditions for the exams. I personally haven't done an IQ test but I wouldn't take it's result too seriously. I've looked at the reasoning tests for a lot of Grad-jobs and they're all a piece of piss. The fact is, you can practice at them and get better (I did), so It can't be a true measure of one's innate intelligence, surely.
As an employer a 1st class would simply tell me the applicant is a very hard worker, most likely a social outcast. That is all xx

I've been on antidepressants for years thanks. You've no idea how hard it's been for me (even with a free computer ) so you cant judge really. I've done similar iq tests several times and always get similar scores so surely it can't be all down to practice. You might want to take up your concerns with the people who create iq tests as I'm sure they know what they're talking about.
What makes you think people with 1sts are social outcasts? That's a strange preconception that has no basis in reality. And you as an employer should know better.

[ultimate mashup]

Does anone know what the entry requirement is for the M&S grad scheme. I've looked all over their webiste but can't see any minimum entry requirments - it just seems you need a degree. Does that mean a 3rd class is acceptable here?

[Ayshizzle]

(Original post by Lamps08)
As an employer a 1st class would simply tell me the applicant is a very hard worker, most likely a social outcast. That is all xx

HAHA. You jelly?

[coffeepirate]

I think I'm half a mark off a 2:1 because of a poor marking system which has failed half my year, and I'm certainly not making any excuses for myself because I know I worked my ass off and I didn't have a social life for most of my final year.
I think it also depends on the degree you do; subjects such as English and Journalism are marked based on interpretation, whereas subjects such as Maths and Science are marked on whether on not the person got the answer right or wrong - basically. I don't want to take anything away from those who got firsts / 2:1s, the majority of them have entirely deserved the mark they earned. But I think subject should also be taken into consideration when looking at classifications. I don't want people to see that I got a 2:2 (if that is what I get) and think, 'oh, she must have just drank her way through uni and wasted taxpayer's money', any less than those who get firsts want people to assume they had an easy degree.

tldr; In my opinion, it entirely depends on who's hiring, and what you're going for. I met a law graduate with first class honours and a masters degree the other day, who has just started working in Burger King, because that's the only job she's managed to get since she got her masters last year. So, it's a tough call, really.

[ch0llima]

If it helps, I know someone who got a 2.2 on appeal and works for a Big4 earning £40k, having applied and worked their way through the grad scheme like everyone else. Similarly, I got put through to round 3 of another Big4 application process and I fell way short of the UCAS requirements.

If they like you, they'll make allowances for you. Employers don't see academic credentials in black-and-white the same way students do.