Do employers give a damn about your A-Levels?

Rubbish. It IS a judgement about you. You are not exactly a shining example of forward thinking, career planning and ambition if, at the age of 17, you cannot realise that the exams you are taking can 1) make a big difference to which university/course you end up on 2) have a significant impact on your future career, not just by way of university choice but also the grades you acheive at A-levels. If 2 candidates are studying, say at LSE, both on the same course and one has AAB and the other has AAA, all else being equal (this would never be the case, but lets say for the sake of argument), the second candidate deserves to be taken purely from the longevity point of view.

It can be a deciding factor if theres so many similar applicants, I don't think they chose to make decisions based on A levels as they don't mean anything, but if there forced to, then they will. For example, Linklaters (law firm) state applicants should have at least AAB at A level. They are aware of the demand they receive for positions in the company therefore they stimulate the supply of applicants by adding another barrier. Its not one that proves ability for the job, but its just something they can use.

It's hard enough for big companies to distinguish between hundreds if not thousands of applicants on paper, and A-levels provide a simple, quantitative way for them to select the higher achieving candidates. I accept that there are some people who have turned themselves around after poor A-levels and achieved a lot at university, yet the majority of people who are going to be highly driven will already be mature and working hard by the time they are 17/18. I think that companies should make exceptions for people who have been through difficult circumstances, but it would be impossibly time consuming to review every single candidate on a case-by-case basis if companies did not have access to their A-level grades as a simple discriminator at the earlier stages of recruitment.

You are spot on that it's an essential discriminator as there's too many applicants. I just think far too many good people are getting shafted right now, a computer blindly rejecting anyone without "2.1" and "300 UCAS" isn't the best way forward. A slightly more sophisticated model that prioritises degree above A-Levels, also perhaps taking into account university and degree (so at the other end people with 5As and a high 2.2 in Oxbridge/Imperial Engineering/Maths aren't also shafted) shouldn't be too difficult to implement.

As an aside, the vast majority of jobs out there involve liasing with other people (clients, customers, students etc), and for these good communication/ interpersonal skills matter much more than exam performance.

The majority of UK "grad scheme" jobs specify a minimum (a) A-Level and (b) degree class requirement. For blue chips this is very commonly 300 points (BBB/ABC) and a 2.1, and they're becoming more strictly adamant on this, caring less about extenuating circumstances each year as more and more applicants have this. The A-Level requirement is often from 3 A-Levels excluding GenStudies, at a first sitting, so AS Levels, sitting an extra A-Level later etc, don't count. So A-Level grades can literally be just as important as your degree grade. There's constant complaints about this, that few people are told that A-Levels actually matter and there's the assumption that once you have a degree your A-Levels are irrelevant, coupled with many people sorting themselves out at uni so grades achieved as a teenager are completely irrelevant to their current potential. Nonetheless it looks like things will remain that way, in fact get even more stringent (and the A-Levels requirement could rise from 300 to 320/40), so it's paramount any 6th formers reading this know to give A-Levels the attention they require!

Edit: GCSEs, on the other hand, are much less relevant. Many firms don't ask for them in an online application, and if there's a minimum requirement it's normally needing a B or C in English and Maths.

Yeah, someone with a first class degree should have more potential than someone with a 2:1, even if the guy with the 2:1 has a few dozen more UCAS points. You'd think recruiters would have the sense to realise these things.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Education is often referred to as a signal, rather than in making someone a better worker in itself. Going to a good uni is a signal that you're a high-potential worker, ie. if you got into a good university, then that matters more than actually going to a good university. So many employers use A levels rather than which uni you go to, thus someone with straight As who decided to stay local for other reasons isn't discriminated (as much) for going to a less-respected university.

Also, A level grades are a proxy for how good you university is. If you just did it on degree grades, then how would you weigh up a first from TVU against a first from LSE? Pretty easily. But say you take somewhere like UCL, where some subjects require straight As to get in and are very well regarded, but others require BBB and have as much lesser reputation. An HR department may not know that. So by looking at a combination of A level grades and degree standard they get a good picture of actually how good you are academically. So if you're getting a first on a very oversubscribed course, it says more than getting a first on a much easier course to get onto.

Add to that the administrative burden, that it costs a lot to interview people so they need automatic sorting for the bulk of candidates, and it becomes even more important. On paper grades is one of the main things they have to judge on.

If they were to use just degree class, then they don't discriminate between a 1st from TVU and one from LSE, plus at that stage it's all prediction, and everyone is predicted a 1st/2:1. If they do it on degree class and how good your university is, then they penalise people who did very well at A levels but chose to go to somewhere near home or where they could afford to, and also people who go to a university that has a specialism, but isn't so good overall. If they use A levels and degree class, they solve those issues.

It's a meritocracy, so it's only fair that the best on paper get the best jobs...

However, what should be questioned is why the best on paper are mostly from the same social background. Why aren't the millions of undoubtedly talented youngsters from inner-city areas and poorer families getting top grades and top jobs?

This country is traditionally elitist/sexist/racist and most of the other -isms...I have a problem with people being filtered via A levels, but I have more of a problem with the elitist education system which makes it so that (mostly) only people who are wealthy/middle class/have professional parents get these jobs in the first place.

Britain is an unfair society...End of.

From my experience of applying to firms with UCAS point requirements I have not had that much of a problem (this is not for big IB/law firms however). I did not have the UCAS requirements for any of the jobs that I applied for that asked for them. This did not stop me from getting through to the interview or selection procedures though. I think for many companies there is a lot more flexibility than people assume. If you have a strong CV post-18 then you can get onto these schemes.

Big blue chips like P&G I think you said. When were you applying? Every year it gets increasingly stringent, not just in IB/Big4. Forums like DoctorJob are full of "I have a 1st and a solid post-18 CV, however my A-Levels are crap and subsequently I get rejected everywhere without interview".

Actually it makes perfect sense. Education is often referred to as a signal, rather than in making someone a better worker in itself. Going to a good uni is a signal that you're a high-potential worker, ie. if you got into a good university, then that matters more than actually going to a good university. So many employers use A levels rather than which uni you go to, thus someone with straight As who decided to stay local for other reasons isn't discriminated (as much) for going to a less-respected university.

Also, A level grades are a proxy for how good you university is. If you just did it on degree grades, then how would you weigh up a first from TVU against a first from LSE? Pretty easily. But say you take somewhere like UCL, where some subjects require straight As to get in and are very well regarded, but others require BBB and have as much lesser reputation. An HR department may not know that. So by looking at a combination of A level grades and degree standard they get a good picture of actually how good you are academically. So if you're getting a first on a very oversubscribed course, it says more than getting a first on a much easier course to get onto.

Add to that the administrative burden, that it costs a lot to interview people so they need automatic sorting for the bulk of candidates, and it becomes even more important. On paper grades is one of the main things they have to judge on.

If they were to use just degree class, then they don't discriminate between a 1st from TVU and one from LSE, plus at that stage it's all prediction, and everyone is predicted a 1st/2:1. If they do it on degree class and how good your university is, then they penalise people who did very well at A levels but chose to go to somewhere near home or where they could afford to, and also people who go to a university that has a specialism, but isn't so good overall. If they use A levels and degree class, they solve those issues.

This is a crap argument. A 21 year old graduate should not be judged on their performance at 17. Why don't we take into account GCSEs? Surely someone who is forward thinking will have realised by the age of 16 that their exams are important. Why aren't GCSE grades taken into account by these companies? Consistency in performance is a nonsense when we consider the massive difference in level and time between A-levels and Degree finals. Most of the 17 year olds I meet are very naive about the world (and these are the bright ones) expecting them all to be clued up is completely unreasonable.