How valuable is a 2:1 degree from a Russell Group university?

But say a job relevant to my degree is advertising they are more likely to hire someone who has spent the last year on a minimum wage job compared to someone who has sat on their arse for a year.

A 2:1 from any University isn't worthless. It opens doors to apply for jobs you couldn't otherwise apply for. The type of job that'll see the OP getting his £40K relatively quick in comparison to 'climbing the ladder' straight from school.

Of course a degree alone won't get you a job - but I'm sure he knew that. I'm sure he knew there was more to job interviews than 'Hello, my name is X and I have a 2:1'.

I've never heard of a "high 2.1" and certainly never been asked for an actual transcript! Anyone that believes a company is going to distinguish between a 68% 2.1 and a 64% 2.1 is clutching at straws.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but out in the real world, your degree mark only gets you past the HR automatic screener. It's your work experience and interview that differentiates you.

I suggest your friend doesn't mention their 'high' 2.1, it makes them sound like a fool.

There is quite a big difference to employers in my field between 64% and 68%

Unfortunately I suspect this is impossible to prove/disprove, otherwise i'd call it complete BS

I dunno, but I can't see a rationale for this unless it is to distinguish between candidates with the same classification.

the difference between 4% is likely to be tiny...

Possibly the graduate employers, overwhelmed with 2.1s that should otherwise have to be sifted and sorted by the sort of qualitative contextual measure you suggest, are trying to force a de facto sub-dividing of the upper division of the second class.

I've never heard of a "high 2.1" and certainly never been asked for an actual transcript! Anyone that believes a company is going to distinguish between a 68% 2.1 and a 64% 2.1 is clutching at straws.

It may be relatively rare, but some do, e.g.

An English (well, a Bachelor of Arts) degree from basically any university that normally scores higher than Cardiff, Liverpool and Glasgow in the league tables.

Oh interesting, although no definition of what a 'good 2.1' might be.

Also all of those roles require additional post-grad qualifications or work experience, Slightly depressing to see the salaries offered. £22k for a Physics Masters?!

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's true. The Oxbridge degrees in a number of subjects are classified with respect to the other students at Oxford/Cambridge, who are most likely some of the most intelligent/hard-working people in the world. More than that, I'm well aware that I'm doing far more work than people at other unis in the first year of my degree (Cambridge NatSci; I'm doing split Bio/Physics, and have covered the same volume of physics as people doing straight physics at Manchester, and more maths than them). I have to say I think it's harder to get a 2.i at the top unis.

Unfortunately I suspect this is impossible to prove/disprove, otherwise i'd call it complete BS

Are you willing to retract you previous statement that I am talking BS now, thanks to individuals providing evidence that employers do differentiate between the percentage of a 2.1.

Not at all. Nowhere has anywhere defined what a 'good' 2.1 might be. Infact, I'd hazard a guess that many of the 'good' 2.1 requirements actually relate to university rather than percentage.

Warwick puts numbers to it: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/academicoffice/quality/categories/examinations/marking/guidance/teacherguidance/

So they do

Every course should be a pass or fail like Medicine. I personally think people with 2:1 are a waste of tax payer's money.