Top jobs 'restricted to graduates with first-class degrees' :(
Scroll to see replies
Companies are already forced to rule people out because of their race and socio-economic background, tbh ruling people out based on their academic results is a step in the right direction.
Its tough out there I have experience in the work place that I have gained through various jobs. However my degree is 2:2 in Law. To be honest I'm not disheartened too much anymore, still going to do my LPC and I'm still trying for a decent job. Just have to set your sights realistically or you'll end up dissapointed and frustrated if you're aiming for the kind of jobs that grades and work experience alone won't get you. Sometimes its not about what you know but who you know in this day and age.
Well that's what you'd expect, isn't it? The top jobs should go to the top graduates. The not-so-top jobs should go to the not-so-top graduates.
It doesn't say ALL jobs restricted to those with first class degrees... just top ones. And I don't see the problem there.
Was there ever really anybody out there that thought they could get a 2.2 or a 3rd and walk into a 'top job' just as easily as if they had earned a first? Keep dreaming.
Anyway, good news for me - I've got one of those first class degree thingys, and not in something piss-poor like English either
.
It doesn't say ALL jobs restricted to those with first class degrees... just top ones. And I don't see the problem there.
Was there ever really anybody out there that thought they could get a 2.2 or a 3rd and walk into a 'top job' just as easily as if they had earned a first? Keep dreaming.
Anyway, good news for me - I've got one of those first class degree thingys, and not in something piss-poor like English either
.
Nonsensical article. I've never seen a job that requires a first degree, nor have I found my degree (2.1) to hold me back from applications to highly ranked graduate employers. Perhaps in the future though, who knows.
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time. With the risk of being negged, ask yourself why do bottom ranked universities hand out as many first class degrees as top ranked universities? Surely the most academically gifted on average end up in the top universities, so why are firsts so evenly dispensed unless the playing field is completely uneven? Do you honestly think someone with a 2.1 from Cambridge should be auto-screened out of an application vs someone with a 1st from Northumbria? This is before we even begin to consider subjects (2.1 in Mathamatics/Economics etc vs 1st in *insert random joke subject*).
To be fair though, we have this same problem today. Is a 2.2 Oxford grad really weaker than a 2.1 from Staffordshire? I think not. This would only serve to escalate this problem.
IMO the government needs to react to the obvious grade inflation and try to even the playing field across universities. It just doesn't make sense the way it is at the moment. A 2.2 from some universities is probably a far more difficult achievement than a 1st from other universities, which is just nonsensical. If everyone requires a 1st for competitive jobs then either A) people will start choosing lower ranked institutions to give themselves a better shot at the grade or B) universities will react through further grade inflation, devaluing the top classifications even further.
*Disclaimer* I go to none of the above universities and I don't have a first (2.1 club), so please don't assume this is a rant about my experience. It's just my observations.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
why shouldn't they be? better acadamic performance --> better job, seems reasonable to me.
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time. With the risk of being negged, ask yourself why do bottom ranked universities hand out as many first class degrees as top ranked universities? Surely the most academically gifted on average end up in the top universities, so why are firsts so evenly dispensed unless the playing field is completely uneven? Do you honestly think someone with a 2.1 from Cambridge should be auto-screened out of an application vs someone with a 1st from Northumbria? This is before we even begin to consider subjects (2.1 in Mathamatics/Economics etc vs 1st in *insert random joke subject*).
To be fair though, we have this same problem today. Is a 2.2 Oxford grad really weaker than a 2.1 from Staffordshire? I think not. This would only serve to escalate this problem.
IMO the government needs to react to the obvious grade inflation and try to even the playing field across universities. It just doesn't make sense the way it is at the moment. A 2.2 from some universities is probably a far more difficult achievement than a 1st from other universities, which is just nonsensical. If everyone requires a 1st for competitive jobs then either A) people will start choosing lower ranked institutions to give themselves a better shot at the grade or B) universities will react through further grade inflation, devaluing the top classifications even further.
*Disclaimer* I go to none of the above universities and I don't have a first (2.1 club), so please don't assume this is a rant about my experience. It's just my observations.
Original post by Indieboohoo
Move if it's in the wrong place.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9373058/Top-jobs-restricted-to-graduates-with-first-class-degrees.html
Since I've been seeing a lot of threads recently about people getting 2.2 seems it's getting tougher for 2.1 students now
.
Opinions please.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9373058/Top-jobs-restricted-to-graduates-with-first-class-degrees.html
Since I've been seeing a lot of threads recently about people getting 2.2 seems it's getting tougher for 2.1 students now
.Opinions please.
when the going gets tough, the tough get going
sister here in my country children walk 3 miles from the desert to a nearby village just to learn the bloody alphabet everyday apart from Fridays. in asia children are thought about geometry and theories in year/ standard 4. what u struggle in GCSE is done here in year 6.
Advise; strive and work hard trust me, i wish i had listened to my teacher
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Elipsis
There is no grade inflation with degrees, there's just way more people who have them now. This is a pretty obvious consequence of putting too many people through university relatively to the amount of graduate roles there are. For some reason Labour thought the order you're meant to do things is supply first then demand second, instead of demand that you supply. We're going to end up going down the Japanese route where people with degrees work in McDonalds before long.
I actually think there is grade inflation; as a percentage, far more degrees are awarded first class today than they were 10 or 20 years ago.
But of course, the big problem, as you rightly point out is that there are just too many people with degrees, full stop.
Original post by M1011
Nonsensical article. I've never seen a job that requires a first degree, nor have I found my degree (2.1) to hold me back from applications to highly ranked graduate employers. Perhaps in the future though, who knows.
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time. With the risk of being negged, ask yourself why do bottom ranked universities hand out as many first class degrees as top ranked universities? Surely the most academically gifted on average end up in the top universities, so why are firsts so evenly dispensed unless the playing field is completely uneven? Do you honestly think someone with a 2.1 from Cambridge should be auto-screened out of an application vs someone with a 1st from Northumbria? This is before we even begin to consider subjects (2.1 in Mathamatics/Economics etc vs 1st in *insert random joke subject*).
To be fair though, we have this same problem today. Is a 2.2 Oxford grad really weaker than a 2.1 from Staffordshire? I think not. This would only serve to escalate this problem.
IMO the government needs to react to the obvious grade inflation and try to even the playing field across universities. It just doesn't make sense the way it is at the moment. A 2.2 from some universities is probably a far more difficult achievement than a 1st from other universities, which is just nonsensical. If everyone requires a 1st for competitive jobs then either A) people will start choosing lower ranked institutions to give themselves a better shot at the grade or B) universities will react through further grade inflation, devaluing the top classifications even further.
*Disclaimer* I go to none of the above universities and I don't have a first (2.1 club), so please don't assume this is a rant about my experience. It's just my observations.
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time. With the risk of being negged, ask yourself why do bottom ranked universities hand out as many first class degrees as top ranked universities? Surely the most academically gifted on average end up in the top universities, so why are firsts so evenly dispensed unless the playing field is completely uneven? Do you honestly think someone with a 2.1 from Cambridge should be auto-screened out of an application vs someone with a 1st from Northumbria? This is before we even begin to consider subjects (2.1 in Mathamatics/Economics etc vs 1st in *insert random joke subject*).
To be fair though, we have this same problem today. Is a 2.2 Oxford grad really weaker than a 2.1 from Staffordshire? I think not. This would only serve to escalate this problem.
IMO the government needs to react to the obvious grade inflation and try to even the playing field across universities. It just doesn't make sense the way it is at the moment. A 2.2 from some universities is probably a far more difficult achievement than a 1st from other universities, which is just nonsensical. If everyone requires a 1st for competitive jobs then either A) people will start choosing lower ranked institutions to give themselves a better shot at the grade or B) universities will react through further grade inflation, devaluing the top classifications even further.
*Disclaimer* I go to none of the above universities and I don't have a first (2.1 club), so please don't assume this is a rant about my experience. It's just my observations.
you've got some points indeed but I wonder how much different courses really are in terms of material - I mean, people only have experience of their own uni's course, so nobody really knows first hand how one uni's course compares to the other uni's.
If you're looking at the same subject for two different universities, does the less prestigious university really set easier exams than more prestigious one? If so, then why would they cheapen the value of their course? Why wouldn't they make their own course as hard as the supposed top universities, and become prestigious themselves?
Or does something else make one uni more prestigious than the other - the teaching quality? the quality of research? Just the fact that it's been repeated over and over that such-and-such a uni is prestigious?
Original post by M1011
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time..
Then what does? A phd? A masters? Surely over generations people could understand the point of these qualifications.
It's amazing how people can continue to make assumptions without any hard evidence to back up their claim.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by FinalMH
Then what does? A phd? A masters? Surely over generations people could understand the point of these qualifications.
It's amazing how people can continue to make assumptions without any hard evidence to back up their claim.
It's amazing how people can continue to make assumptions without any hard evidence to back up their claim.
It's hard to tell if you're arguing with me or not
Did you read the rest of my post? To put it bluntly, who would you think to be stronger academically (on average); Oxbridge 2.1 or Northampton 1st (random choice)?
Also funnily lots of lower ranked universities count 67s/68s as firsts, so in the above scenario they could actually have the same mark.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
you've got some points indeed but I wonder how much different courses really are in terms of material - I mean, people only have experience of their own uni's course, so nobody really knows first hand how one uni's course compares to the other uni's.
If you're looking at the same subject for two different universities, does the less prestigious university really set easier exams than more prestigious one? If so, then why would they cheapen the value of their course? Why wouldn't they make their own course as hard as the supposed top universities, and become prestigious themselves?
Or does something else make one uni more prestigious than the other - the teaching quality? the quality of research? Just the fact that it's been repeated over and over that such-and-such a uni is prestigious?
If you're looking at the same subject for two different universities, does the less prestigious university really set easier exams than more prestigious one? If so, then why would they cheapen the value of their course? Why wouldn't they make their own course as hard as the supposed top universities, and become prestigious themselves?
Or does something else make one uni more prestigious than the other - the teaching quality? the quality of research? Just the fact that it's been repeated over and over that such-and-such a uni is prestigious?
In answer to the three bold points;
1) You're quite right, but on the other hand most people will have school friends who attend lots of different universities. I know for a fact that a friend who went to Imperial had far more complex work then me, despite a similar(ish) degree programme. I got to a uni in the 20s by the way. Similarly, I've looked at the placement essays (generally worth 10% of a degree, kind of like a dissertation) of colleagues from different universities during my year in industry, and some of the work which I thought was pretty atrocious ended up getting strong 2.1 / 1st grades at universities (to be exact, Northumbria and Sheffield Hallam). I'm not qualified to mark work, but I'd be confident in saying they'd drop a classification at my university, and I'd probably drop a classification on my essay judging by Imperial standards, so in my opinion the differences are there to be seen.
Of course this could be explained by work ethic. I personally believe I could achieve the same mark at a top 10 uni if I put in the required effort (not factual, just my opinion). Similarly, those at low ranked unis could probably achieve well in stronger universities if they put in the required effort (again, my opinion). But if the institution sets a certain standard, then I guess you can't blame students for working to that standard?
2) I personally think the marks speak for themselves. It's undeniable that the most academically gifted go to top universities for the most part (there will be exceptions of course). So it doesn't really make sense to me that so many students get firsts at bottom table universities, students who previously were probably averaging D's (or they wouldn't be there in the first place), while straight A students at top universities don't seem to do any better really classification wise. If the playing field was even, I imagine top 10 universities would give out more firsts whilst bottom table universities would give out far fewer firsts (and of course this would effect all universities in between as well).
3) Personally, I think it's reputation. It's hard to imitate the reputation of long standing, well regarded universities. Reputation allows then to secure the best students, which in turn allows them to maintain their reputation. Simply making your exams harder so more students fail won't make a university suddenly look better IMO.
Original post by Cattty
all your degree grade tells people is that you are good/not good at writing essays or exams. for example: i am on a teaching degree, i have a lot more practical experience and knowledge than a lot of people on my course, but i am not good at writing academically.
so some people on my course who in my opinion will not make good teachers, are going to leave with a 1st and appear to be better for the job because they are good at writing.
i think this needs to change for some degrees
so some people on my course who in my opinion will not make good teachers, are going to leave with a 1st and appear to be better for the job because they are good at writing.
i think this needs to change for some degrees
How do you fix that for the raft of graduates who have already gone through the process but faced the same problem though?
Original post by MQ003C
Sometimes its not about what you know but who you know in this day and age.
Sometimes?
Most times you mean!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by geetar
This is a great news! I have a first class degree!
Unfortunately, it's in English.
Unfortunately, it's in English.
Why is that a bad thing?
Original post by Tigzie
I know people that have applied for jobs with a 2.2 when the specifications have asked for a 2.1 and been selected for interview and got it. I also know people that haven't been to university at all and got some years experience behind them and got a good job and working their way up (this would depend on what jobs you want, obviously).
I think you just have to put yourself out there, never say never.
I think you just have to put yourself out there, never say never.
True and I see you're a Chair fan
1st class masters degree in civil & structural engineering - I'm in 
Seriously, though. All my friends I went to uni with got good jobs and our pay is in no way reflected by our classification. Our pays range from £43,000 down to £32,000 and we got between 2:2's up to 1st's. We all work in the same city but for different companies.
Seriously, though. All my friends I went to uni with got good jobs and our pay is in no way reflected by our classification. Our pays range from £43,000 down to £32,000 and we got between 2:2's up to 1st's. We all work in the same city but for different companies.
Original post by M1011
Nonsensical article. I've never seen a job that requires a first degree, nor have I found my degree (2.1) to hold me back from applications to highly ranked graduate employers. Perhaps in the future though, who knows.
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time. With the risk of being negged, ask yourself why do bottom ranked universities hand out as many first class degrees as top ranked universities? Surely the most academically gifted on average end up in the top universities, so why are firsts so evenly dispensed unless the playing field is completely uneven? Do you honestly think someone with a 2.1 from Cambridge should be auto-screened out of an application vs someone with a 1st from Northumbria? This is before we even begin to consider subjects (2.1 in Mathamatics/Economics etc vs 1st in *insert random joke subject*).
To be fair though, we have this same problem today. Is a 2.2 Oxford grad really weaker than a 2.1 from Staffordshire? I think not. This would only serve to escalate this problem.
IMO the government needs to react to the obvious grade inflation and try to even the playing field across universities. It just doesn't make sense the way it is at the moment. A 2.2 from some universities is probably a far more difficult achievement than a 1st from other universities, which is just nonsensical. If everyone requires a 1st for competitive jobs then either A) people will start choosing lower ranked institutions to give themselves a better shot at the grade or B) universities will react through further grade inflation, devaluing the top classifications even further.
*Disclaimer* I go to none of the above universities and I don't have a first (2.1 club), so please don't assume this is a rant about my experience. It's just my observations.
Unfortunately a first doesn't equate to better academic performance a lot of the time. With the risk of being negged, ask yourself why do bottom ranked universities hand out as many first class degrees as top ranked universities? Surely the most academically gifted on average end up in the top universities, so why are firsts so evenly dispensed unless the playing field is completely uneven? Do you honestly think someone with a 2.1 from Cambridge should be auto-screened out of an application vs someone with a 1st from Northumbria? This is before we even begin to consider subjects (2.1 in Mathamatics/Economics etc vs 1st in *insert random joke subject*).
To be fair though, we have this same problem today. Is a 2.2 Oxford grad really weaker than a 2.1 from Staffordshire? I think not. This would only serve to escalate this problem.
IMO the government needs to react to the obvious grade inflation and try to even the playing field across universities. It just doesn't make sense the way it is at the moment. A 2.2 from some universities is probably a far more difficult achievement than a 1st from other universities, which is just nonsensical. If everyone requires a 1st for competitive jobs then either A) people will start choosing lower ranked institutions to give themselves a better shot at the grade or B) universities will react through further grade inflation, devaluing the top classifications even further.
*Disclaimer* I go to none of the above universities and I don't have a first (2.1 club), so please don't assume this is a rant about my experience. It's just my observations.
Well some of this I agree with, and some I don't.
I DO NOT know if this holds true for all subjects/uni's, but - I was at Aberdeen university and I studied engineering. Every two years or so people from UCL or kings college..I can't remember which..came up to bench mark the course content and the exam questions/marking schemes against their own. So I think, for engineering at least, most courses are bench marked so a first from 1 uni shouldn't be wildly dissimilar to one obtained from another university. Although, that being said, I do still think some uni's have prestige attached to them.
I think it's a shame more people don't consider Aberdeen for engineering as it's the oil and gas captial of europe and I don't know anyone who has done an engineering degree here and not walked into a job / had a multitude of offers.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
why shouldn't they be? better acadamic performance --> better job, seems reasonable to me.
Totally agree. Employers have to differentiate somewhere between candidates, and with new graduates they haven't got much to go on other than degree classification.
Original post by Cattty
all your degree grade tells people is that you are good/not good at writing essays or exams. for example: i am on a teaching degree, i have a lot more practical experience and knowledge than a lot of people on my course, but i am not good at writing academically.
so some people on my course who in my opinion will not make good teachers, are going to leave with a 1st and appear to be better for the job because they are good at writing.
i think this needs to change for some degrees
so some people on my course who in my opinion will not make good teachers, are going to leave with a 1st and appear to be better for the job because they are good at writing.
i think this needs to change for some degrees
I agree grades seem to favour exams over practical work unless you're doing some art based/applied subjects.
At least the skills you learn in your practical skills will come in handy for your CV if it's relevant.
It doesn't worry me. Experience, experience, experience! When it comes to general grad jobs a 2:1/1st isn't the deal breaker. Employers would rather take on the 2:1 grad with experience than the 1st grad who did nothing. Obviously, if you've got a 2:1 and experience and your competitor is a grad with a 1st AND experience then you need to up your game and stand out with more focused experience/voluntary stuff. Also people have different capabilities during interview - if the interview becomes the only way to distinguish you apart from the competition then get interview experience (job center/uni careers service) and work on that.
Basically if you've just sat exams/done coursework for 3 years without getting any experience then you're in a pickle because a) you lack experience and b) it's highly likely that you have the interview skills equivalent to cacti.
Likewise if you just sat in the union drinking alchopops - you're in a pickle!
Don't be disheartened - it's all about your drive, frame of mind, and the way you sell yourself on your CV/on application forms. I've had 3 interviews since June and I don't actually 'officially' graduate for another 2 weeks. I have a 2:1. I just need to work on my interview technique lol - I'm a bit more skilled than cacti but by how much, I'm not so sure.
Basically if you've just sat exams/done coursework for 3 years without getting any experience then you're in a pickle because a) you lack experience and b) it's highly likely that you have the interview skills equivalent to cacti.
Likewise if you just sat in the union drinking alchopops - you're in a pickle!
Don't be disheartened - it's all about your drive, frame of mind, and the way you sell yourself on your CV/on application forms. I've had 3 interviews since June and I don't actually 'officially' graduate for another 2 weeks. I have a 2:1. I just need to work on my interview technique lol - I'm a bit more skilled than cacti but by how much, I'm not so sure
.That is a bit pointless because degrees from low down unis are a lot easier than top 10 unis. So it is far easier to get a 1st in them.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 20 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 26 minutes ago
Best university for (mechanical) engineering?Last reply 33 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 37 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 38 minutes ago
Learning basic vocabulary list for Higher Level GCSE in French - is that enough?Last reply 45 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 50 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2814
Posted 51 minutes ago
Is Birmingham city university good for biomedicineLast reply 53 minutes ago
Official Politics and/or International Relations Applicants Thread 2024Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
