The 2.1 requirement is a joke

What's MORSE? Could you maybe do a masters in a relevant area? Or what about SMEs - have you looked at them? Often, they're less focused on arbitrary academic points than the big employers that receive many dozens of applications for every position.

It's not impossible to find employment with a 2:2, particularly if it's in a subject that can be quite relevant to industry. Quite a few people from my course (engineering) secured well paying jobs upon graduate with 2:2 degrees. You've just got to accept that you won't go straight into the big, household names and instead focus on the less obvious companies. Fire off speculative applications and network.

I got a first but can't apply for a lot of jobs because I only have 280 UCAS points. That's just how it goes, I'm afraid.

What you did 3 years ago isn't going to bother a company as much as what you did at uni studying since then. Not getting a 2:1 has limited your options but there are still jobs out there.

They are not mocking you. You seem to think you are better than what you are. Someone who got at least 2 A*s at a-level with high aspirations should have got a 2:1 fairly easily. As you said, you didn't perform and that has set you back. But you are the only one to blame, not companies you are trying to apply to.

I'm looking through graduate roles and a bunch of them require a 2.1 and wont even let you apply without one. What makes this so bad is that they often don't specify what you need a 2.1 in, just any degree.

I got a 2.2 in MORSE at Warwick. I looked at a graduate role for Fujitsu- 2.1 degree and 240 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels. I have 400 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels.

Why is the system so broken? I'm not going to pretend like I performed well at Uni, but don't mock me with these ridiculously low A-Level requirements and then say 2.1 in ANYTHING.

Warwick is a top university though and they will probably only let in great candidates with good A Level grades into a course like MORSE and yet a lot don't pass so getting a 2:2 from a very good Russell Group University course is actually not that bad, definitely as good if not better than a 2:1 from an average/lowly ranked university.

Do employers not set adjustments of the 2:1 to adjust for how easy that subject is/how highly ranked the university is? because if not then that is ridiculous if you got a 2:1 in a lowly ranked university with a rubbish subject then you wouldn't be a suitable, by a long shot.

typical TSR

It is true though how can a course accepting grades of A*AA not have like a 99% 1st rate and you can say the opposite for courses accepting low amounts of UCAS points for 2 A Levels(how can it have anything above 1% 1st rate)-there is some possibility for outliers students who really struggle at university/don't do the work despite being clever and vice versa which shouldn't account for more than 1%.

The fact that generally grades are reasonably consistent between universities and there aren't massive pass rates at the best unis and massive fail rates at the worst universities, despite their being a massive difference in the ability of the students admitted to their courses shows that their course can't be close to the same difficulty-I don't think there is any real room for argument.The fact that some employers don't do their research and can't grasp basic logic is worrying.

Warwick is a top university though and they will probably only let in great candidates with good A Level grades into a course like MORSE and yet a lot don't pass so getting a 2:2 from a very good Russell Group University course is actually not that bad, definitely as good if not better than a 2:1 from an average/lowly ranked university.

Do employers not set adjustments of the 2:1 to adjust for how easy that subject is/how highly ranked the university is? because if not then that is ridiculous if you got a 2:1 in a lowly ranked university with a rubbish subject then you wouldn't be a suitable, by a long shot.

You should understand that A-levels are not really representative of someone's ability, many people flop A-levels for various reasons and do well at university and similarly lots of people pass with aswome grades at A-level but do crap at university.

Also "best" and "worst" are subjective, it depends on a number of factors as to what you're rating them for. Just because someone in a "low" ranked university gets a 2:1 or a first doesn't mean they aren't competent for a job compared to a so called RG graduate who studied the same course. Employers have many barriers in which they test the competency of a candidate such as 2 or so interviews or online tests in order to single out the best candidates for the job.

I find your level of snobbery disgusting, perhaps you will realise how stupid that ideology is once you're at university and start applying for jobs yourself. It's not just about education.

So you're saying that someone who spends 3 years at a 'good' uni not working hard and coming out with a low grade should be favoured over someone who works every minute and comes out with a top grade at a 'worse' uni? That's ridiculous. Hard work is rewarded, no matter what uni it is at.

You should understand that A-levels are not really representative of someone's ability, many people flop A-levels for various reasons and do well at university and similarly lots of people pass with aswome grades at A-level but do crap at university.

Also "best" and "worst" are subjective, it depends on a number of factors as to what you're rating them for. Just because someone in a "low" ranked university gets a 2:1 or a first doesn't mean they aren't competent for a job compared to a so called RG graduate who studied the same course. Employers have many barriers in which they test the competency of a candidate such as 2 or so interviews or online tests in order to single out the best candidates for the job.

I find your level of snobbery disgusting, perhaps you will realise how stupid that ideology is once you're at university and start applying for jobs yourself. It's not just about education.

So you're saying that someone who spends 3 years at a 'good' uni not working hard and coming out with a low grade should be favoured over someone who works every minute and comes out with a top grade at a 'worse' uni? That's ridiculous. Hard work is rewarded, no matter what uni it is at.

A-Levels are very representative of your ability hence why universities ask for A-Level offers and will often reject you even if you just miss your offer.The better universities have tougher and more challenging courses so ask for higher grades.If A-Levels weren't representative offers wouldn't be given out for them.Usually people who think that they aren't representative did badly-don't get fooled by their arrogance.