How much more advantages is a First class degree compared against a 2.1?

For a forum that prides itself on being the keen students and the intelligent ones so to speak I am completely in awe of the stupidity being spouted out over the last four pages. Clearly a first is more advantageous than a 2:1. People are saying that a First is just for those who work hard. Nonsense! Exams at university are entirely different to those at school. It is just sheer naivety and inexperience/ignorance if you think it is "those that revise well get firsts".

Another point raised was that a First is only of real value if you go into research. Where did you source this lunacy? If you look at internships at the top firms in London, the vast majority of those are filled by those who are either A) Oxbridge Students or B) Have Firsts in their degrees.

You may think I am just someone who thinks I am superior or whatever. However, I do not hold a First and I did not go to Oxbridge. I am just stating the facts. Facts which a surprising majority of you are too blind to see.

Oh the negs I am going to receive for bursting some peoples bubbles.
Having said this, a 2:1 is a great achievement and unless you want to go to the very top (which you still can with a 2:1) you will most likely end up doing very well with your life.

I got a first class degree in English back in 2003 from a good university, but it's made no difference to my employment prospects whatsoever. In addition to my degree I also have lots of work experience, gained just before and after I completed my degree. However in 2008, for family reasons, I was forced to re-locate to another area of the UK, and since then I've struggled to find work. I'm unemployed, although, technically, I work for far less than the minimum wage on a self-employed basis. I've had my CV reviewed and honed by professionals and have applied for hundreds of jobs all over the country, but never even get to interview stage. For some reason, I'm being sidelined before a potential employer has even met me.

Back in 2003, I thought getting a first would open doors, but, instead the doors have been firmly shut. I've thought about possible reasons why I'm currently 'unemployable' (I have no criminal record, have never been sacked, or made redundant). What baffles me the most is that employers are rejecting my applications time and time again before they have even met me. I've even contemplated the possibility that my 'first class' honours might be the reason why employers aren't interested. Any thoughts anyone?

Maybe you haven't done enough relevant work for their field? They might want someone with work experience in their field. It could just be that there are just better applicants who have better and more relevant work experience than you. I don't think interviewers are going to be looking at your 1st much now, as its been 12 years since you graduated. I think the fact that you are self-employed might hurt you as they are worried you won't adapt to the workplace as well as someone who has been working at a company their entire lives.

Amidst the loads of debate for the distinction between a 2.1 and a 2.2, how much does everyone think a First class degree has an edge over a 2.1 degree?

The simple answer is not as big as a difference as between a 2.2 and a 2.1.
However it will probably add a couple points to a job app but experience is going to probably be more important

Massive advantage for postgraduate places. Some PhDs will require a first or even a high first. A few graduate roles ask for a 1:1, more employers will have a 2:1 as the minimum but favor graduates with a 1:1 nonetheless (all else being equal).

Several graduate employers are now considering a 2.2 on the basis that they found degree classification has little impact on one's ability to perform the job. Better indicators tend to be cognitive tests. So the gap between perception of a 2.2 & 2.1 may be narrowing.

I would see that as being very poor practice, as you're homogenising your group so dramatically. Maybe only in academia would that be favorable, where ability/performance in that area is a fair primary indicator (as in a PhD). Feel recruiters in industry would be shooting themselves in the foot though.

I never really understood the use of cognitive tests in employment.

They don't seem particularly illustrative of ability to do a job well (some people perform badly in cognitive tests for some reason or another, or conversely function better due to their structured nature), and just seems to be an excuse to limit the number of applications to be considered.

Think I remember looking at medical tests employed and scores on those, and a low correlation with medical school success etc.

I never really understood the use of cognitive tests in employment.

They don't seem particularly illustrative of ability to do a job well (some people perform badly in cognitive tests for some reason or another, or conversely function better due to their structured nature), and just seems to be an excuse to limit the number of applications to be considered.

Think I remember looking at medical tests employed and scores on those, and a low correlation with medical school success etc.