The Student Room Group
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>
Discovering Higher and Degree Apprenticeships with UWE Bristol, get free advice >>

Classification of a graduate

Hello TSR

I would to know at what point are you no longer classed as graduate compared to a experienced professional? At what point are "graduates" you unable to apply for graduate schemes?

Cheers





Posted from TSR Mobile

Scroll to see replies

Grad schemes will usually specify if there are any limits to how long ago you need to have graduated. Some (Civil Service for example) have no limit whilst others might specify that you have to have graduated less than 5 years ago.

Beyond that, I think you usually become an experienced professional when you earn more than the grad schemes are offering or when to apply for a grad scheme would be a step backwards.

Basically if there are no limits on when you can apply, it's your own decision when grad schemes are still appropriate for you based on factors such as salary, how comfortable you would feel being a trainee, etc.
Original post by J-SP
There is no cut off, it would just be whether a graduate role is suitable depending on your experience/motivation.

Age discrimination legislation makes it very difficult to have a cut off.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Actually, companies can - and many do - specify a maximum period of time after you have obtained your degree. Or they can also specify only final year students, too.
Original post by J-SP
I'm surprised, especially about the final year only. Who does that?


Posted from TSR Mobile


A few of the companies I applied to specified that, although a lot more specified a final year student or "recent" graduate, with some going into more detail about what constitutes recent; most commonly within two years.

Why are you surprised? The whole point of graduate schemes/jobs is to give people their first job after university. It therefore seems reasonable that someone who is a bit more experienced would be an experienced applicant, not a graduate.
Original post by J-SP
Which employers though?

I'm surprised because a lot of employers changed their policy on this when the age discrimination legislation came in.

I understand it's about recruiting people for entry level roles, but you have to be careful with wording of job specs. I know some argue that a recent graduate could still be of any age to cover their backs on that point though.

I've never heard of a final year only graduate programme though - only internships. Must be sectors I haven't worked in/know about.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Oil & gas.

It's not age discrimination, though, because it's not about the candidate's age: it's about the time that has lapsed since they graduated, and what their current professional status is. Age really has nothing to do with it.
Original post by J-SP
That has been tested/questioned though which is why many changed their policy. And as I said, some have covered their backs using that argument.

I wasn't aware of any in that sector with that policy/approach though. It's a shame they have it.




Posted from TSR Mobile


It seems like a very robust defence to me.

Seems quite a common requirement too. I Googled "you must be a recent graduate" and found quite a lot of companies and jobs specifying the quoted.

Why is it a shame?
Original post by J-SP
Which companies did you find?

I think it will have a negative impact on diversity. You are completely limiting yourself to people only focused on the career while they are at university or shortly after it.

Career changers are a great group of talent to tap into. If you had such a policy, you couldn't recruit those people.


Posted from TSR Mobile


You can Google it yourself and see it in its entirety, but the first few results I got included Pixar and Schlumberger.

Maybe because I studied engineering, everyone was very focused on their careers during university, so this wasn't an issue. The same with career changers - they'd have had to go back to university to gain an appropriate degree, so would hence be final year students or recent graduates.
Graduate schemes... is it time since ANY degree, or just undergraduate? So if I did a PhD in 5 years time, would it be counted from then? Entirely hypothetical, not considering it :P
Original post by J-SP
What about an engineering student who decided to do something else first like Teach First or travel the world, teach English in Asia, raise a family, be a full time carer for a family member, maybe have circumstances that meant they couldn't work? All those people wouldn't be eligible and yet would have the appropriate qualifications. I think it's a shame those people miss out.

I "googled" and I didn't find a lot of formal graduate programmes (which didn't surprise me). Mainly roles in the US and more sales type jobs here in the UK.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm not aware of anyone from my course who did any of the above, but regardless, they would still be able to apply for engineering jobs when they decided they wanted to move back into the field, just not those that specify "recent" graduates.
Original post by J-SP
I've met thousands of people like that over the years, even in techie degree subjects.

Those employers are potentially missing out then. Thankfully so many of the formal graduate programmes with the big employer brands don't have that policy.


Posted from TSR Mobile


But they're not missing out, because they can still recruit them, just not onto a formal graduate training programme designed to be someone's first job after university.
Original post by J-SP
For many of the "candidates" I mentioned, it would be their first job. And any non-graduate routes are likely to not provide the same opportunities/training or progression, meaning both the employers and the candidates miss out.








Posted from TSR Mobile


I didn't say a non-graduate route; I said just not onto a specific formal graduate training programme that specifies final year students or recent graduates only.
Original post by J-SP
But two separate graduate programmes are not going to exist within a company, one with the policy and one without.


Posted from TSR Mobile


They don't have to...

You do realise that there are a lot more options available to graduates, that are actual graduate level work, than the kind of graduate schemes that the big organisations run? And that many, many companies can, and will, recruit a graduate into what is essentially an entry-level position?
Original post by J-SP
Yes, but you are missing the point that they are missing out on the graduate programme which is likely to bring greater career development, training and development with a specific company that has this stance.







Posted from TSR Mobile


I'm certainly not denying that such candidates are missing out on graduate schemes. What I am denying is that such people are missing out on career changes.

From a company's perspective it makes as much sense as any other arbitrary filter. It helps reduce the amount of applications, particularly from people who may not be suitable for the role (i.e. someone with a few years' experience is not going to be suitable for an entry level role).
Original post by J-SP
It disagree with that. Other filters are based on the level of qualification or experience. This is purely down to time.

If it was a suitable way to filter the majority of recruiters who get 1000s of applications would use it. Very few do.


Posted from TSR Mobile


This is based on level of experience too, in that employers are assuming that someone who isn't a recent graduate will already have amassed a certain amount of experience that would make a graduate position below the level they're currently at.

Lots of employers do specify recent graduates only; I frequently saw it when I was on the graduate job hunt for engineering positions.
Original post by J-SP
We are going round in circles here. Our experiences and knowledge seem to be very different.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Yes, we are. But going back to something you previously said:

...graduate programme which is likely to bring greater career development, training and development with a specific company that has this stance.


Has this really been the case at the organisations you have worked at?
Original post by J-SP
Your question isn't exactly clear...


Posted from TSR Mobile


That graduate programmes bring better career development and opportunities that what I suppose would be termed a normal job, at the organisations you've worked at.
Why would they care when they can just pay you less?
Original post by J-SP
The organisations haven't had other entry level roles that would would be comparable to those on the graduate programme. It wouldn't make sense to have them anyway and have a graduate programme, you only need one or the other.

Graduate programmes have a lot more investment of both time and money into training/development/coaching/mentoring than other positions within a company. It's seen as an investment to develop the future talent of the company. By default this leads to those on the programme to have greater opportunities.


Posted from TSR Mobile


Ah okay, now I see where some of the differences of opinion are coming from.

At the companies I have worked at, almost all staff employees had access to the kind of training, development and mentoring that would help them develop their careers, possibly make sideways moves etc. regardless of whether they were on a graduate programme or not; the learning and development didn't stop there. Hence why I'm fairly nonchalant about graduate schemes not being available to already experienced professionals.
Original post by J-SP
I don't understand why they would have a grad scheme in the first place then. It wouldn't be needed.

And you seem to keep forgetting my point that these people are not necessarily experienced if they haven't been employed.

But I give up trying to rationalise with you!


Posted from TSR Mobile


It's a convenient way of recruiting a large number of inexperienced people into the company, and giving them the training and development that will turn them into competent employees.

I'm not at all forgetting that said people are not experienced if they haven't been employed. If they haven't been employed then it's very, very likely that they're still a recent graduate, and hence a graduate scheme would be a good option. But if they have been employed for several years, i.e. they weren't a recent graduate, then going back to an entry level role that assumes little to no prior knowledge or experience wouldn't be the best option for them, or the employer.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you