[wdreamer]

If a postgraduate and a undergraduate apply for the same job as part of a graduate scheme, are they going to received the same salary?

I'm a master student and I have been looking at jobs and for graduate jobs it seems like they are not very interested in your masters... For these kind of jobs (graduate jobs) is there any advantage in being a postgraduate rather than undergraduate?

[geetar]

I think in terms of salary most places would give the same to people at the same level.

It may be that a postgrad might help getting employed in the first place, however.

[threeportdrift]

(Original post by wdreamer)
If a postgraduate and a undergraduate apply for the same job as part of a graduate scheme, are they going to received the same salary?

I'm a master student and I have been looking at jobs and for graduate jobs it seems like they are not very interested in your masters... For these kind of jobs (graduate jobs) is there any advantage in being a postgraduate rather than undergraduate?

Employers only tend to pay more if they need your skills more. So unless an employer is specifically going to use a PhD holder or a Masters holder in a higher role than a straight graduate, they aren't usually going to pay them more.

[wdreamer]

(Original post by geetar)
I think in terms of salary most places would give the same to people at the same level.

It may be that a postgrad might help getting employed in the first place, however.

I don't think so, now that I have been looking at some companies websites, for graduate jobs they are more interested in A levels and undergraduate results..

I was applying for one big company and they asked me for all the A Levels marks and undergraduate marks, however, about my postgraduate studies they only asked about the course, university and predicted mark..

[wdreamer]

(Original post by threeportdrift)
Employers only tend to pay more if they need your skills more. So unless an employer is specifically going to use a PhD holder or a Masters holder in a higher role than a straight graduate, they aren't usually going to pay them more.

right, I totally agree. So that means that for now my masters will not have any benefit in terms of higher salary =\

[Joinedup]

Yeah there was a salary survey that found there was no general postgrad premium being paid. Can't remember where I read it.

[rippedbanana]

the mean of postgraduates tends to be higher. in every subject on average postgraduates earn more than undergraduates. but the second post about the increased employability is probably it. grad jobs that pay more than 35k go to undergrads with summer internship or postgrads with some paid or unpaid work experience. the point about the premium in the short term is probably true.

[Cora Lindsay]

(Original post by rippedbanana)
In every subject on average postgraduates earn more than undergraduates.....

You'd expect that, I think, because postgrads are generally drawn from the brighter, more motivated part of the undergrad population, characteristics which ought to make them more attractive to employers, and more likely to progress, and hence characteristics which ought to improve earnings.

[sj27]

(Original post by Cora Lindsay)
You'd expect that, I think, because postgrads are generally drawn from the brighter, more motivated part of the undergrad population, characteristics which ought to make them more attractive to employers, and more likely to progress, and hence characteristics which ought to improve earnings.

This, + what geetar and threeportdrift said.

With some exceptions, a postgrad degree is generally not going to make you immediately more productive in an entry-level job than someone straight out of undergrad, and there is no reason an employer should pay more to one person than another if both are doing the same thing.

[poohat]

(Original post by Cora Lindsay)
You'd expect that, I think, because postgrads are generally drawn from the brighter, more motivated part of the undergrad population, characteristics which ought to make them more attractive to employers, and more likely to progress, and hence characteristics which ought to improve earnings.

The problem with talking about 'postgrads' is that it confuses masters students with phds. I dont see why the average masters students would be smarter or more motivated than the average undergrad; a lot of people do masters to upgrade a 2:2 or because they didnt go to a great undergrad university or because they done the wrong degree and want to change to something else they enjoy more. People who do undergrads at (eg) Oxbridge will usually just go straight into a grad scheme or phd program without any need for a MSc first (at least if they done a science degree).

Whether a masters will improve your salary mainly depends on where you done your undergrad. If you have a math undergrad from cambridge then a masters isnt going to make you more employable, but if your undergrad is from the university of plymouth and you can get into a masters at a RG university then it iwll obviously make a big difference

[sj27]

(Original post by poohat)
a lot of people do masters to upgrade a 2:2 or because they didnt go to a great undergrad university or because they done the wrong degree and want to change to something else they enjoy more.

Isn't that a bit contradictory - it's not easy to find a master's that takes a 2:2, at least at most decent unis, so it would be difficult to "upgrade". And of course the better unis require high 2:1s or firsts, so you are indeed talking about better than average academic ability there. And all of the reasons you've stated above, anyway, show a motivation to improve so it doesn't undermine the "motivated" aspect Cora mentioned. In any case, you have no statistical basis to back up what your "a lot" is....other than presumably some anecdotal stuff you've picked up here and there.

(PS: you meant "did" the wrong degree.)

[Nathanielle]

That depends on various factors:

1. country(some foreign students simply need to get a Master to be not looked upon in their home country, as soon as they want to return at some point)
2. field (e.g. Chemistry vs Journalism)
3. culture in that company
4. the long term prospects (later promotions vs. Bachelor, who may leave work to get their Master later in their life)

On the other hand the simple reason to get some jobs, Bachelor don't get or simply make it less dependant on luck, makes it valuable for a lot of people.

I think this Oxbridge = Bachelor, other universities = Master, doesn't play such a great role, unless you get really down the league table.

[Rancorous]

Usually a masters is a waste of money for immediate employment prospects. If you went to a bad first uni, and then went on to Cambridge...maybe it's worth it, maybe...but probably not.

Some employers will just chuck out CV which have masters right after the undergrad on them. Why? It usually shows that the person didn't know what they wanted to do or failed at getting anywhere, and just has rich, long-suffering parents, and probably shows that they're too academic rather than intellectual. This isn't hearsay - I have friends in recruitment who do this.

And also, to the above, I'm sorry, but the undergrad has marginal bearing as to where you'll end up. Maybe it does a little to start off with, but Oxbridge is not the gravy train you think it is. I know unemployed maths grads from Cambridge and I know successful people who went to rubbish unis. In the real world, most employers don't really care; it comes down what you can do for them, whether you are smart enough, sure, but also do you have the particular skill-set and personality they're looking for.

Edit: lol at the neg from the unemployed masters student seconds after I posted. If you were looking for better prospects, you wasted a huge amount of money - deal with it.

[Cora Lindsay]

(Original post by poohat)
The problem with talking about 'postgrads' is that it confuses masters students with phds.

Fair point, but it cuts both ways, given the number of PhDs who go into (not very well paid) postdoc positions, thus dragging the average down. However, PhDs are only a small proportion of the postgrad population (the UK produces 15000 PhDs per year and 100000 Masters per year; for comparison it produces about 300000 first degree graduates per year).

(Original post by poohat)
I dont see why the average masters students would be smarter or more motivated than the average undergrad

I can think of plenty undergrads who have the intelligence and motivation of a King Edward potato.* The postgrad pool generally excludes at least the worst of these.




* to be fair to these students, their real interests often lie outside academic study, and they are taking advantage of university to develop interests in extracurricular areas like sport, politics, journalism

[Nathanielle]

(Original post by Rancorous)
Usually a masters is a waste of money for immediate employment prospects. If you went to a bad first uni, and then went on to Cambridge...maybe it's worth it, maybe...but probably not.

Some employers will just chuck out CV which have masters right after the undergrad on them. Why? It usually shows that the person didn't know what they wanted to do or failed at getting anywhere, and just has rich, long-suffering parents, and probably shows that they're too academic rather than intellectual. This isn't hearsay - I have friends in recruitment who do this.

And also, to the above, I'm sorry, but the undergrad has marginal bearing as to where you'll end up. Maybe it does a little to start off with, but Oxbridge is not the gravy train you think it is. I know unemployed maths grads from Cambridge and I know successful people who went to rubbish unis. In the real world, most employers don't really care; it comes down what you can do for them, whether you are smart enough, sure, but also do you have the particular skill-set and personality they're looking for.

Edit: lol at the neg from the unemployed masters student seconds after I posted. If you were looking for better prospects, you wasted a huge amount of money - deal with it.

You are right, but for some careers you need a Master and/or even a PHD, but that are mostly subjects like engineering or chemistry, where your work is directly related to your studies and not entry position where "everyone" can apply.

[rippedbanana]

that seems all right, i think, but if you run some tests, the coefficients should come up highly significant. you can use dummies for lets say those that went to g5 and the dependent is the current salary and the employed/unemployed. dont just run it. depending on the data, you might have to sort out the multicullinearity first. in the end you have to get the right confidence interval, so yes there should be unemployed cambridge graduates.

(Original post by Rancorous)
And also, to the above, I'm sorry, but the undergrad has marginal bearing as to where you'll end up. Maybe it does a little to start off with, but Oxbridge is not the gravy train you think it is. I know unemployed maths grads from Cambridge and I know successful people who went to rubbish unis. In the real world, most employers don't really care; it comes down what you can do for them, whether you are smart enough, sure, but also do you have the particular skill-set and personality they're looking for.

[rippedbanana]

theory is that postgraduates think that some jobs are below them. the right person for the right job. postgraduates in english wouldnt want to clean the toilets. they are not the right people for shop assistants either. management consultancy, well, why would i have to hire english postgrad instead of econ postgrad for management consulting. so when you hear some history postgraduate complaining that there are no jobs in the private sector, i have to say well thats reasonable. id probably say have you applied for jobs in archives, national treasures or something like that.

(Original post by Rancorous)
Some employers will just chuck out CV which have masters right after the undergrad on them. Why? It usually shows that the person didn't know what they wanted to do or failed at getting anywhere, and just has rich, long-suffering parents, and probably shows that they're too academic rather than intellectual. This isn't hearsay - I have friends in recruitment who do this.