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

Would having a 2:1 degree or higher from a Russell Group university be a huge advantage for a young person to have in today's grim unemployment scene? Or is it overrated?

Would it be enough to enable a young person to get a well-paid job relatively quickly after graduating and enjoy a comfortable quality of life, despite this broken economy we're facing?

LOL.

The answer is everyone has this. Literally everyone. For every job, there will be two dozen Russell 2:1s. You need a lot more than that to stand out.

Connections, work experience, selling yourself, getting people to like you, playing the lottery, making lots of applications...there's no magic formula.

Why bother even asking the question if you have a closed mind?

You didn't understand -- everyone applying for a job will have a 2:1 who will be under active consideration. The fact is a 2:1 from a Russell is worthless in and of itself. It comes down to the factors I've mentioned above more than anything.

Also Russel group graduates better not get a better chance. A 2:1 from Oxford is worth just as much as a 2;1 from anywhere else it terms of what stuff you have covered. Of course the real world doesn't work like that...

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.

Well, there seems to be a consensus (at least on TSR) that a good degree from a Russell Group university is more likely to be valued over a good degree from an ex-Polytechnic, which I agree is harsh.

This is not universally true.

Firstly, there is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy at Oxbridge that the belief is that the courses are harder and the people are smarter. That is not a fact. But it leads to people working harder. Just because you work hard doesn't mean the course is harder or the examination will be tougher.

Secondly, the % of firsts/2:1s at Oxbridge does not compare with universities outside of Oxbridge. For every subject Oxbridge is a long way ahead in terms of the number of firsts and 2:1s it produces, with very few, if any, students receiving a 2:2.

Third, just because the average student may be brighter at Oxbridge than somewhere else, that does not mean the top 10% will be brighter than the top 10% at another institution, nor does it mean the top 10% at another institution will be any less intelligent or hard working than the bottom 90% of the Oxbridge cohort. If you are in the top 20% at a Russell and pick up a 2:1, even had you been in the bottom 10% of the Oxbridge cohort, you would still pick up a 2:1.

Fourthly, it depends entirely on the course you are comparing at different institutions. In terms of the quantity of material demanded, this is not generally a relevant concern. If you feel your course, for instance, has more material than another course, but your module exam consists of 10 questions of which you have to answer 4, there are vast chunks of the syllabus which can and should be left off. This is the key to success in a law degree, for instance, where students are given hundreds of pages to read per potential topic. However, if you are referring to courses which use a bell curve to grade papers, and your success depends on your ranking in the cohort rather than the quality of your answer, that is a relevant concern.

The reality is most degrees are easy. I could never do a maths degree because that's not my skill-set. But if you asked me, as a graduate, to go study and get a first in an arts subject at Oxbridge, I could do it in my sleep. Because I was at university for four years and I know how the game works, and how to win at it! It will not come down to my intelligence and hard work.

Would having a 2:1 degree or higher from a Russell Group university be a huge advantage for a young person to have in today's grim unemployment scene? Or is it overrated?

Would it be enough to enable a young person to get a well-paid job relatively quickly after graduating and enjoy a comfortable quality of life, despite this broken economy we're facing?

Well, there seems to be a consensus (at least on TSR) that a good degree from a Russell Group university is more likely to be valued over a good degree from an ex-Polytechnic, which I agree is harsh.

I think I can live happily with an income of around £40,000 per year, and I'm confident that a 2:1 from a Russell Group university will land me there.

Did anyone else wtf at this on multiple levels?