Which looks better on a CV?

Almost certainly a 2.2. from a top 10 uni - though you will be cut off from a lot of jobs from the get-go as usually they're always a 2.1 or above, but then someone with a 2.1 from a met will probably find it near impossible to get one of those jobs anyway because of the status and reputation of the quality of the degree awarded from it (and more difficult subjects like proper sciences are usually not offered).

Also to get into a top 10 uni, these day's you'll need at least AAB if not higher at A level, so it will also be those grades vs someone who did terribly at A level, which will bring down the CV.

and perhaps they should change the system of automatically rejecting a 2.2s if that's the case.

Are you guys serious? So you're saying a 62 from London met would look better than a 58 from Warwick? I find it very hard to believe that an employer would be that stupid and perhaps they should change the system of automatically rejecting a 2.2s if that's the case.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh here we go. Hi grade snobs.

Throughout my time at university I worked solidly, and I do mean solidly. I am course to get to get a 2:2. Does that mean I did not work hard? No. Does that mean i'm not smart? No. It means that one of my weaknesses is that I cannot express my ideas clearly in writing.

I know plenty of people who have previous got 2:2's from 'Non-Respected' universities who have got well paid jobs by applying their knowledge, showing this in interviews. Getting a job isn;t just about being a top ten student, its about being able to apply the knowledge and skills you have got to a work place.

OP, chances are normal employers will look for the skills you have. When applying for a job it isn't necessarily what University you went to, its how you present yourself.

I think you've missed the point of the thread entirely.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Throughout my time at university I worked solidly, and I do mean solidly. I am course to get to get a 2:2. Does that mean I did not work hard? No. Does that mean i'm not smart? No. It means that one of my weaknesses is that I cannot express my ideas clearly in writing.

When applying for a job it isn't necessarily what University you went to, its how you present yourself.

Are you guys serious? So you're saying a 62 from London met would look better than a 58 from Warwick? I find it very hard to believe that an employer would be that stupid and perhaps they should change the system of automatically rejecting a 2.2s if that's the case.

Posted from TSR Mobile

the awful truth is if you get a 2.2 from warwick you probably should have worked a little bit harder.
There's usually some provision for rounding up a %age point or 2 to the next classification, dunno what it is at warwick off the top of my head.

The hidden assumption behind these threads is that you'll find it easier to get the marks at a lower ranked uni but I don't think that's necessarily a given.

No. 2:2 leaves you virtually dead in the water no matter where it is from.

You'd be surprised how many Met 2:1s there are on grad schemes and in industry.

Also, very few employers give a damn about A-levels. They certainly don't put a massive amount of weight on them.

I'd take a 2.2 from Oxford over a 2.1 from London Met, and frankly anyone that wouldn't is a bit clueless. However that is an extreme example I guess.

As for 'very few employers give a damn about A-levels', that depends on where you want to apply really. If you're looking at grad schemes, you'll find practically all of the employers have A-level requirements.

Very few grads get on to those big grad schemes.

And yes, that is an extreme example. I would say that both are pretty pointless..

You think a 2.2 from Oxford is pointless? I can get on board with the Met one, but I think saying that about Oxford is a bit harsh!

Very few isn't exactly true, granted proportionally it's not the majority no, but we're still talking about tens of thousands of grad scheme places every year.

I said 'pretty pointless'


Posted from TSR Mobile