2.2 means you're doomed it seems

Hey, thanks for responding.

Sadly I've accepted the case that it is true- regardless of the guy who ranted at me and claimed he had 90%, I was lazy and it was all my fault. The system is perfect according to him. (That one really touched a nerve with me, especially considering he's a standing example of uni's having different standards)

Regardless, I managed a 2.1, in my first year and got pretty messed up in my second year where I flopped 3 modules rather hard, and 1 in my 3rd year (all functional programming related), and it's just been hard to recover ever since.

Job hunting it is sadly, I've applied to a few of the firms that do accept 2.2's, like Jaguar Land Rover, Unilever etc. Jaguar turned me down, still waiting on the others. Fingers crossed anyway! Any smaller companies anyone could suggest?

First off, don't say i'm trying to offend people when I'm really not. I at no point attempted to insult anyone. I feel you on the other hand are trying to insult me and I don't appreciate that. Writing comments like 'I, unlike yourself', seems like you're simply trying to take a stab at me. Sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder about something. If you feel the need to simply be rude please don't read or bother responding to this.

Regardless you're a standing example of what I mean. I'm not saying you didn't work hard. But nobody in the history of my course has scored a 90% average at my university. I accept you may be a clever person. You probably are. The highest average anyone's ever got is 82%, does that not seem ridiculous? I'm at a very old university which has been teaching Computer Science for well over 20 years. Unless you're some sort of prodigy would you not agree there's something up there?


And what I mean by my friends going to lower ranked universities getting 2.1's doing much easier work, is that I'm about to get a 2.2. They are less able than me (hence why I have to help them so much, I did not say that help detracted me from my own studies). Yet they're on track for a 2.1, having generally much lower grade boundaries. I don't know what's hard to understand about that.

*Subscribed*

What does "Subscribed" mean??

H

Firstly, I would like to clarify: I said you stand to offend some people, not that you are trying to offend.

When I said 'I, unlike yourself' that read exactly how it was meant to.
Doing Maths, I am doing a subject where 100% is an attainable grade, so people getting 90% is possible. However, before you come back again with this tripe of it simply being a hallmark of a lower institution, I have a friend doing PPE in Oxford, who got 100% on some of his papers, and another friend who got 100% in a Latin exam in Warwick.

Whilst not a chip on my shoulder, I do get incensed when I read comments from people like you who seem to think that the name of the institution should come before the grade itself - 2:1s and Firsts are hard to get, regardless of where you got them, and should be respected as such.

I am not a prodigy, I just work very hard.
I have always had an interest in maths, and enjoy studying it, but including lectures, I easily put in 50 hours of work a week, so I genuinely think I deserve my marks, and they are not a sign of a lower ranked university (Should a 72 look better on a CV against a 94 simply because 94s at 'good' universities are unheard of?)

As a side note, I'd be concerned if I was a 'friend' of yours, you don't seem very supportive - they are probably very proud of the results they got, and would be upset if they felt you were trying to take that away from them.
You didn't get a 2:1, so you're taking credit for other peoples.

Put that on your CV. "I may have only got a 2:2, but I did help others get a 2:1"

The grade boundaries are universal:

70 + - First
60 - 69 - 2:1
50 - 59 - 2:2
40 - 49 - 3rd
34 - 39 - Pass
< 34 - Fail

Whilst the exams are set and marked by universities themselves, they are sent off and checked (at least mine are, anyway) and made sure they are up to scratch, otherwise they could give away firsts to everyone, their ranking would improve, and no-one would care.

You'll leave with a 2:2, it's better to accept this and focus on other aspects you have which will make you employable (being whiny and blaming the system for your misgivings maybe not)

Watching the thread.



By any chance this lesser university isn't Nottingham Trent?

The NHS graduate scheme takes people with a 2.2, and they have a IT pathway.

But I know how you feel, I could potentially end up with a 2.2 myself, I got a 3rd in first year and 2.2. in second year (pretty much did no work). So I need to buckle up and ace these final exams!

To be fair, in the majority of cases (at least the ones I've seen), the pre-requisite of a 2.1 is often coupled with a pre-requisite of a certain number of UCAS points from your top three A-levels, which is a proxy for screening by university. It is unlikely that the theoretical individual who got a 2.1 from london met will have met the UCAS recommendation, making your argument somewhat invalid.

Another point to remember is that your university degree is only one component of your application and what recruiters make their decisions on. If you are relying on your grades alone to get a job then you are likely to be unsuccessful anyway. Additionally, even with the UCAS points and 2.1 restrictions, the pool of potential applicants is still massive, and the pool of actual applicants is likely to significantly exceed their recruitment needs. They don't need to spend the additional time and money sifting through the applications of people with 2.2's in the hope they might possibly find a gem in the coal. And even if they do, they still need to answer the question of why this brilliant individual only got a 2.2, with the answer often being a negative factor that reduces their chances of being hired.

Getting a 2.1 should be the number one priority when it comes to university. If you neglect this priority in order to socialise, get involved in societies/sport/student politics etc., or for any other reason, then you are doing university wrong. It really shouldn't be a surprise to students who graduate with a 2.2 that this filters you out when applying to graduate schemes, those who are likely to be successful in what is currently an extremely competitive jobs market will be working towards this next step well before they graduate.

Don't quite know why that's relevant. I myself go to what you would consider a lower class university (Not in the top 50) - yet that is through choice.
I had offers from Bristol, Warwick, UCL (Got an interview at Oxford, was pooled, unfortunately though, that was all she wrote) - all very good institutions, yet I chose to go to a University close to home - this may not be the case with your friends, but I imagine you stand to offend people who read this by insinuating that people who go to a lower ranked university don't deserve the opportunities they have over you, simply because you go to a wealthier institution.

I, unlike yourself, am averaging 90% across my modules, and am looking at getting a first. I worked damn hard for that, and I deserve it.
It sounds like you didn't work, and so if you are clever enough to get a 2:1 or above, you deserve the grade you get, for not putting the effort in, which is what employers will see. They don't want to employ someone with good A levels, but no work ethic.
They want people who are educated, and will work hard, something your friends can show they will do.

So no, you are not screwed if you have a 2:2, many graduate schemes are open to those with desmonds. What will get you, is this 'woe is me' attitude you have. Hating on those who do better than you, despite you not seeing them as being 'worthy', or only having done as well because you helped them. If that really is the case, you should make sure that you have done all your own work before helping them with theirs - again, something employers will want to see.

/rant.

I agree with you! I would give you rep but i'm out of it today.

Hello all,

I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.

I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.

I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.

In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?

I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.

=======================

On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?

Not if you're Jewish.

p.s. ffs do not neg me I'm being serious, being Jewish is a career boost and it's a fact.

Hello all,

I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.

I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.

I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.

In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?

I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.

=======================

On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?

Hey man

I agree with everything you've written. There are simply too many people picking easy modules, studying easy degrees at universities where the standard of students is quite frankly poor and getting 2.1's. Certainly at my university they scale the marks down if everyone does well in a module so it really does make it harder to get a 2.1 if the standard of students is high.

I think they should scrap all the pathetic degrees out there that people are able to do and as you say use a standardised measure of testing which makes it a level playing field for everyone. Alternatively they could let people with 2.2's apply for a graduate scheme but add more assessments in the A/C.

Thank you, I agree. Try explaining that to the guy who's got apparently 90's in all of his modules, coming from a poor university claiming that the system is perfect. If I'd known this is how recruitment worked, I would have gone to a lesser ranked university and studied there.

Ohh well, what's one to do?