2.2 means you're doomed it seems
Hello all,
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MasterSnake
Hello all,
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
Get other aspects of your CV up, and be pro-active in finding a job that you want.
Indeed, someone who has *just* missed out on a 2.1 and ended up with a high 2.2 from Cambridge, will have worked much harder than someone who just about scraped a 2.1 (like 2% more than the first person) from London Met.
It's unfair, it's ridiculous, and it needs to change - you can't filter by 2.1 or above when some universities just abuse the system.
Look at LSE, awarding 40-50% firsts to their economists, when UCL give out 17% and Cambridge around 30%. LSE's economics undergrads are not better than Cambridge's, and even if they were, there's no way in hell that they're *that* much better.
This whole idea of 2.1 or above is ludicrous in my opinion. I think instead of degree classifications, you should have a simple ranking next to your degree.
This way, you can't tweak it - a university can't just make it such that more of their students are ranked in the top half - only half of their students can be. Making exams easier wouldn't do a *thing*, as it would still remain true that the top 10 students are the only ones who receive the top 10 ranking.
BA University of Cambridge - Ranked 101/200
BA London Metropolitan - Ranked 99/200
Who would you pick?
It's unfair, it's ridiculous, and it needs to change - you can't filter by 2.1 or above when some universities just abuse the system.
Look at LSE, awarding 40-50% firsts to their economists, when UCL give out 17% and Cambridge around 30%. LSE's economics undergrads are not better than Cambridge's, and even if they were, there's no way in hell that they're *that* much better.
This whole idea of 2.1 or above is ludicrous in my opinion. I think instead of degree classifications, you should have a simple ranking next to your degree.
This way, you can't tweak it - a university can't just make it such that more of their students are ranked in the top half - only half of their students can be. Making exams easier wouldn't do a *thing*, as it would still remain true that the top 10 students are the only ones who receive the top 10 ranking.
BA University of Cambridge - Ranked 101/200
BA London Metropolitan - Ranked 99/200
Who would you pick?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by SimpleTom
Get other aspects of your CV up, and be pro-active in finding a job that you want.
Hey, thanks - I agree, I have tried to highlight my other skills. And I am a competent computer science student. I just messed up 1 lot of exams in my second year pretty hard and it's been difficult to recover ever since.
In terms of applications though, grad schemes are out of the question due to the vast majority all wanting 2.1's. And most smaller companies all want someone with years of experience. It's the classic issue of trying to get onto the career ladder.
Any particular schemes/companies you'd recommend?
How about the option of becoming a British expat? Would this be a viable option, if so any recommendations?
Original post by Upper Echelons
Indeed, someone who has *just* missed out on a 2.1 and ended up with a high 2.2 from Cambridge, will have worked much harder than someone who just about scraped a 2.1 (like 2% more than the first person) from London Met.
It's unfair, it's ridiculous, and it needs to change - you can't filter by 2.1 or above when some universities just abuse the system.
Look at LSE, awarding 40-50% firsts to their economists, when UCL give out 17% and Cambridge around 30%. LSE's economics undergrads are not better than Cambridge's, and even if they were, there's no way in hell that they're *that* much better.
This whole idea of 2.1 or above is ludicrous in my opinion. I think instead of degree classifications, you should have a simple ranking next to your degree.
BA University of Cambridge - Ranked 101/200
BA London Metropolitan - Ranked 99/200
Who would you pick?
It's unfair, it's ridiculous, and it needs to change - you can't filter by 2.1 or above when some universities just abuse the system.
Look at LSE, awarding 40-50% firsts to their economists, when UCL give out 17% and Cambridge around 30%. LSE's economics undergrads are not better than Cambridge's, and even if they were, there's no way in hell that they're *that* much better.
This whole idea of 2.1 or above is ludicrous in my opinion. I think instead of degree classifications, you should have a simple ranking next to your degree.
BA University of Cambridge - Ranked 101/200
BA London Metropolitan - Ranked 99/200
Who would you pick?
I totally agree, glad to find it's not just me that feels the same way. If i had known the job market was like this, I would have happily gone to a university with lower entry requirements, suggesting that I would be considered higher in terms of averaging.
I personally feel bringing in standardised testing would be better - seems the only fair way to weight up candidates.
Original post by MasterSnake
I totally agree, glad to find it's not just me that feels the same way. If i had known the job market was like this, I would have happily gone to a university with lower entry requirements, suggesting that I would be considered higher in terms of averaging.
I personally feel bringing in standardised testing would be better - seems the only fair way to weight up candidates.
I personally feel bringing in standardised testing would be better - seems the only fair way to weight up candidates.
I disagree with standardised testing - universities teach and examine different things in different styles. There's no problem with individual assessment, as long as it's a *ranking* and not simply a score. You can't tweak rankings.
By definition, LSE couldn't simply make it such that 50% of their students were ranked in the top 30%
Original post by MasterSnake
Hello all,
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
Don't quite know why that's relevant. I myself go to what you would consider a lower class university (Not in the top 50) - yet that is through choice.
I had offers from Bristol, Warwick, UCL (Got an interview at Oxford, was pooled, unfortunately though, that was all she wrote) - all very good institutions, yet I chose to go to a University close to home - this may not be the case with your friends, but I imagine you stand to offend people who read this by insinuating that people who go to a lower ranked university don't deserve the opportunities they have over you, simply because you go to a wealthier institution.
I, unlike yourself, am averaging 90% across my modules, and am looking at getting a first. I worked damn hard for that, and I deserve it.
It sounds like you didn't work, and so if you are clever enough to get a 2:1 or above, you deserve the grade you get, for not putting the effort in, which is what employers will see. They don't want to employ someone with good A levels, but no work ethic.
They want people who are educated, and will work hard, something your friends can show they will do.
So no, you are not screwed if you have a 2:2, many graduate schemes are open to those with desmonds. What will get you, is this 'woe is me' attitude you have. Hating on those who do better than you, despite you not seeing them as being 'worthy', or only having done as well because you helped them. If that really is the case, you should make sure that you have done all your own work before helping them with theirs - again, something employers will want to see.
/rant.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by MasterSnake
I totally agree, glad to find it's not just me that feels the same way. If i had known the job market was like this, I would have happily gone to a university with lower entry requirements, suggesting that I would be considered higher in terms of averaging.
I personally feel bringing in standardised testing would be better - seems the only fair way to weight up candidates.
I personally feel bringing in standardised testing would be better - seems the only fair way to weight up candidates.
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2319598
Original post by ekudamram
Don't quite know why that's relevant. I myself go to what you would consider a lower class university (Not in the top 50) - yet that is through choice.
I had offers from Bristol, Warwick, UCL (Got an interview at Oxford, was pooled, unfortunately though, that was all she wrote) - all very good institutions, yet I chose to go to a University close to home - this may not be the case with your friends, but I imagine you stand to offend people who read this by insinuating that people who go to a lower ranked university don't deserve the opportunities they have over you, simply because you go to a wealthier institution.
I, unlike yourself, am averaging 90% across my modules, and am looking at getting a first. I worked damn hard for that, and I deserve it.
It sounds like you didn't work, and so if you are clever enough to get a 2:1 or above, you deserve the grade you get, for not putting the effort in, which is what employers will see. They don't want to employ someone with good A levels, but no work ethic.
They want people who are educated, and will work hard, something your friends can show they will do.
So no, you are not screwed if you have a 2:2, many graduate schemes are open to those with desmonds. What will get you, is this 'woe is me' attitude you have. Hating on those who do better than you, despite you not seeing them as being 'worthy', or only having done as well because you helped them. If that really is the case, you should make sure that you have done all your own work before helping them with theirs - again, something employers will want to see.
/rant.
I had offers from Bristol, Warwick, UCL (Got an interview at Oxford, was pooled, unfortunately though, that was all she wrote) - all very good institutions, yet I chose to go to a University close to home - this may not be the case with your friends, but I imagine you stand to offend people who read this by insinuating that people who go to a lower ranked university don't deserve the opportunities they have over you, simply because you go to a wealthier institution.
I, unlike yourself, am averaging 90% across my modules, and am looking at getting a first. I worked damn hard for that, and I deserve it.
It sounds like you didn't work, and so if you are clever enough to get a 2:1 or above, you deserve the grade you get, for not putting the effort in, which is what employers will see. They don't want to employ someone with good A levels, but no work ethic.
They want people who are educated, and will work hard, something your friends can show they will do.
So no, you are not screwed if you have a 2:2, many graduate schemes are open to those with desmonds. What will get you, is this 'woe is me' attitude you have. Hating on those who do better than you, despite you not seeing them as being 'worthy', or only having done as well because you helped them. If that really is the case, you should make sure that you have done all your own work before helping them with theirs - again, something employers will want to see.
/rant.
First off, don't say i'm trying to offend people when I'm really not. I at no point attempted to insult anyone. I feel you on the other hand are trying to insult me and I don't appreciate that. Writing comments like 'I, unlike yourself', seems like you're simply trying to take a stab at me. Sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder about something. If you feel the need to simply be rude please don't read or bother responding to this.
Regardless you're a standing example of what I mean. I'm not saying you didn't work hard. But nobody in the history of my course has scored a 90% average at my university. I accept you may be a clever person. You probably are. The highest average anyone's ever got is 82%, does that not seem ridiculous? I'm at a very old university which has been teaching Computer Science for well over 20 years. Unless you're some sort of prodigy would you not agree there's something up there?
And what I mean by my friends going to lower ranked universities getting 2.1's doing much easier work, is that I'm about to get a 2.2. They are less able than me (hence why I have to help them so much, I did not say that help detracted me from my own studies). Yet they're on track for a 2.1, having generally much lower grade boundaries. I don't know what's hard to understand about that.
Original post by Upper Echelons
I agree with the method- however I do see a problem. I feel it would result in a rather horrible work environment when everyone feels the need to compete against each other.
I feel making friends and stuff would be far more difficult, if you're constantly made to battle for places. Also it would make group projects horrible and generally change the entire atmosphere to a rather rancid one.
Also I can see employers being stupid and putting limits like 'top 100 only', regardless of what university once again.
Original post by Yael
Not if you're Jewish.
Bit of an odd statement but fair play if you feel that way.
It may be appropriate to contact the HR departments directly and see if there are other options available to you. Many job application forms just instantly reject applications if you don't meet the standards, so you can't really trick that system into getting your application further.
Let them know your place of study, grade percentage (especially if you were close to the grade boundary) and ask about which opportunities are available. Without trying to sound smug, do let them know that you believe your lower grade still makes you a viable candidate and you'd like the opportunity to have your application be read - They might let you contact them directly or you could ask to be informed of suitable positions.
If it's that much of a problem, consider re-sitting exams (you can for the final year, right?) or doing a postgraduate degree. There may be smaller companies who are willing to take you on, so you'll have to go for the approach of experience before the killer job. Are there any gradute training positions you could do?
Let them know your place of study, grade percentage (especially if you were close to the grade boundary) and ask about which opportunities are available. Without trying to sound smug, do let them know that you believe your lower grade still makes you a viable candidate and you'd like the opportunity to have your application be read - They might let you contact them directly or you could ask to be informed of suitable positions.
If it's that much of a problem, consider re-sitting exams (you can for the final year, right?) or doing a postgraduate degree. There may be smaller companies who are willing to take you on, so you'll have to go for the approach of experience before the killer job. Are there any gradute training positions you could do?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by SillyEddy
It may be appropriate to contact the HR departments directly and see if there are other options available to you. Many job application forms just instantly reject applications if you don't meet the standards, so you can't really trick that system into getting your application further.
Let them know your place of study, grade percentage (especially if you were close to the grade boundary) and ask about which opportunities are available. Without trying to sound smug, do let them know that you believe your lower grade still makes you a viable candidate and you'd like the opporunity to have your application be read - They might let you contact them directly or you could ask to be informed of suitable positions.
If it's that much of a problem, consider re-sitting exams (you can for the final year, right?) or doing a postgraduate degree. There may be smaller companies who are willing to take you on, so you'll have to go for the approach of experience before the killer job. Are there any gradute training positions you could do?
Let them know your place of study, grade percentage (especially if you were close to the grade boundary) and ask about which opportunities are available. Without trying to sound smug, do let them know that you believe your lower grade still makes you a viable candidate and you'd like the opporunity to have your application be read - They might let you contact them directly or you could ask to be informed of suitable positions.
If it's that much of a problem, consider re-sitting exams (you can for the final year, right?) or doing a postgraduate degree. There may be smaller companies who are willing to take you on, so you'll have to go for the approach of experience before the killer job. Are there any gradute training positions you could do?
Thanks Edd, I appreciate that. Much better of a post than the guy claiming to have a 90% average or whatever. Never heard of a 90% average in my life after 3 years at my Uni, nobody has ever scored something so high in my department. Pretty much sums up what I was moaning about - different unis have different standards.
We can't resit our exams- resits are all capped at 40% which is rather useless. Postgrad is an option but getting a decent place to do your postgrad with a 2.2 is rather hard.
Ringing up HR depts may be an option, I have a feeling most will just tell me to get lost though. Probably best having to work my way up now as depressing as it is.
Thanks
Original post by yodawg321
I aspire to do Computer Science at Nottingham :O
Notts is okay - it's a tough course, I personally wouldn't recommend it unless you're really interested in functional programming. Most universities tend to have a couple of functional programming modules in your first year where it doesn't count, then it's up to you to choose more if you enjoyed it. However Nottingham imposes it on you, and for people like myself who really are rather rubbish at it it was a big issue.
Generally I found most of the UK students were rather poor at functional modules, however a lot of the students from the Ningbo China campus were pretty good at it, brings up averages pretty high. Not really sure to why that was. Not saying all of the UK students were bad, however the majority clearly struggled. So much so, in first year the average for the functional module in the UK was 52% meanwhile in Ningbo it was 71%. That's a pretty large difference.
I recommend you practice some functional programming on your own, if you feel it's not for you, I say don't go to Nottingham. It will ruin your averages like it's done for me quite a bit. If you enjoy it, Nottingham is perfect for you.
If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.
Original post by MasterSnake
Hello all,
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.
I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.
I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.
In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?
I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
=======================
On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
To be honest and fair, what you say is true to a large extent. But to get a 2.1 is not impossible. I do the same degree as you so I can feel you. I got a 3rd in my first year (barely managed to pass my modules) cause I didn't study. I took a year out and then returned with motivation and got a 1st in my second year and Im looking to carry that on to third as well.
As for not being able to go anywhere with a 2:2, if there is any sector which is slightly forgiving, its the IT and Engineering sector. In fact, something like 50% of all engineering jobs require 2:2 (at top companies) and as a Computer Scientist you could look into that. But if you absolutely want to do something not related to your degree discipline, I suggest you do a Masters and work your a*s off to get a first and go back job hunting.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- 2.2 with dreams of working at a magic circle law firm
- Might end up getting a 2:2 degree upset
- 2.1 for final year
- Is my life ruined?
- Stick it out?
- Want to Study MA Law with 2.2 non-law degree…
- My grades are crap
- Calculator Error - Normal Distribution
- Are people with 2.2s good PHD students?
- What is wrong with me?
- Ucat fiasco
- Which uni should I go to?
- Am I doomed?
- Girls make me happy
- Can i change my name
- Graduate Role Application Anxiety
- Options
- Open University Final Grading?
- idk what to do with my life ruined my uni choices
- Shame surrounding my 2:2 Law Degree
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 month ago
applying to Russel group unis if my undergrad is from a non Russel groupLast reply 1 month ago
How long should you wait to hear back after an assessment centre?Last reply 1 month ago
Applied Professional Engineering Program degree apprenticeship at JLRTrending
Last reply 1 month ago
applying to Russel group unis if my undergrad is from a non Russel groupLast reply 1 month ago
How long should you wait to hear back after an assessment centre?Last reply 1 month ago
Applied Professional Engineering Program degree apprenticeship at JLR
