Which looks better on a CV?

Thanks for quoting a slightly larger chunk of what you originally said. I don't really see the relevance to tbe question though. Are you just being stubborn?

You may be right, though I do find it surprising that employers would completely disregard the fact they managed to get into a top uni because they just missed out on a 2.1, but like has been pointed out, that's just the system.

Most grad schemes ask for a 2.1 minimum. If you are getting less than 60 percent it means your getting more than 40% of your work wrong. If you were working that would mean you were getting more than 50 percent of your work wrong. Why would one hire one who is getting all their work wrong?

Also just because you got into a good university 3-5 years ago doesn't reflex on how you are now. You could work your arse off then chill out for the next 3-5 scaping a 2.2.

This situation is not realistic anyways, one wouldn't aim for a 2.2 they would aim for 100%.

I think the thing is that you have to remember an employer is interested in who you are now. They want to know how hard you've worked in your degree. Caring about 'a top ten uni' is more about who you were at your Highers or A Levels, since that's what gets you in. Then what you actually get out of it is completely different. Some people with high school grades really thrive at uni; some people don't.

Most grad schemes ask for a 2.1 minimum. If you are getting less than 60 percent it means your getting more than 40% of your work wrong. If you were working that would mean you were getting more than 50 percent of your work wrong. Why would one hire one who is getting all their work wrong?

Also just because you got into a good university 3-5 years ago doesn't reflex on how you are now. You could work your arse off then chill out for the next 3-5 scaping a 2.2.

This situation is not realistic anyways, one wouldn't aim for a 2.2 they would aim for 100%.

Interesting thought, but I don't think it holds true in general. Employers definitely take university in to account.

I hazard a guess that you're doing a numerate degree.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Interesting thought, but I don't think it holds true in general. Employers definitely take university in to account.



Where do you draw the random 50% from?

It's also worth considering that not all degrees are of equal difficulty. I think most would agree the same degree subject is likely more challanging at a top 10 than a bottom 10. Another example; if you want to qualify as a chartered accountant you need 55% in the exams, yet nobody condems accountants as only getting half their work right. Etc.

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

Posted from TSR Mobile

Oh yeah they definitely do, I'm just saying that's why I don't think a 2.2 from a top ten uni is going to look better than a 2.1 from another uni. A 2.2 just isn't that good, regardless of how good your A Levels or Highers were to get you into uni, whereas a 2.1 shows you've worked far more solidly. Obviously if you had the same classification then they'd look at which uni you went to.

Well it may be harder but employers do not care. Most employers require you to get a 2.1. Simple. If you are not getting a 2.1 you are lazy, or have some problem in your life.

At the end of the day if you get 55% in your degree you will find it hard to get a job. I mean yeh partying and going to societies is all fun, but it won't get your application looked at. Most employers filter at students with low degrees, even before reading their application.

Also going to a top university means you did well in your A levels 3-5 years ago, it does not mean you are good at your degrees. A degree is a different ball game then A levels.

Have you ever even looked at a grad scheme before? This is the problem with tsr, its the clueless leading the even more clueless.

Yea fair points.



To be clear, I'm not arguing the virtues of a 2.2 or in any way suggesting it won't make life difficult when it comes to finding a decent job.

However the bit in bold is the kind of comment I was initially addressing. I just don't think it's fair to label a 61% from a bottom half of the table as better than a 59% from a top 10 university (for example). No doubt it causes massive issues with getting auto-filtered out, but I don't think many people/employers actually looking at a person with a high 2.2 from Oxford is going to actively think they're a weaker candidate than someone with a low 2.1 from a far less reputable institution. The issue is getting looked at in the first place though of course.

Oh and the 55% I was referring to almost guarantees a decent job, so again bear in mind that grades should be taken in context of the qualification.



+1

Civil engineering yes.

Have you ever even looked at a grad scheme before? This is the problem with tsr, its the clueless leading the even more clueless.

There may be requirements, but they won't choose an AAB candidate over an ABB candidate just because of those grades. If the A level grades come into the decision, the candidates are ridiculously matched elsewhere.

I've not just looked at grad schemes; I've been through processes and been involved in graduate recruitment.


Posted from TSR Mobile

It seems to me that school grades are just another filter for grad schemes. But I have been asked about them in interviews in some detail. I sat my Highers in 5th year and was offered a place at university. My grades dropped a bit in 6th year and I was asked to explain that in a job interview and this was not a grad scheme. I agree the difference between an A and a B is unlikely to make much difference but I've been told multiple times that a good set of results in a wide range of subjects in school is impressive to an employer.

There may be requirements, but they won't choose an AAB candidate over an ABB candidate just because of those grades. If the A level grades come into the decision, the candidates are ridiculously matched elsewhere.

I've not just looked at grad schemes; I've been through processes and been involved in graduate recruitment.

In addition, the vast majority of companies/organisations who recruit graduates in some form do not have A-level requirements.

Even many of those in the Times 100 do not have A-level requirements. If you're hung up on getting into law/Accountancy etc, I see why you may think that.

I speak from experience when I say that a law firm will happily select an ABB/2:1 profile over an AAAA/1st profile if the candidate has made up for the 'deficiency' elsewhere. As I said earlier, for A levels to materially influence a decision, then the candidates must be very closely matched elsewhere.
Posted from TSR Mobile

I doubt you have any experience applying for grad jobs if I'm honest, Sometimes the filter literally is 340 points, which means if you did have ABB you would be auto filtered out and if you had AAB you would be looked at.
Its not a case of them saying if you got A*A*A* they would definately hire you. The fact is you have to tick of boxes just to get looked at and then hope your personality and experience matches whatever they're after, if you're applying as a graduate.