The 2.1 requirement is a joke

I agree that there should be some sort of standardisation of marks across subjects, or consideration of degree subject studied.

However, I think people are just giving excuses as to why they didn't make the 2.1 mark if they literally only went to uni and did nothing on the side like a job to support themselves.

You have all the time in the world to study, and ensure yourself the 2.1. Especially in a STEM subject where it is easier to get a 2.1 as you either know it or you don't.

If I were an employer, I'd take a 1st at a polytechnic over a 2.2 at a RG any day.


Posted from TSR Mobile

What?
If I was a recruiter and I had to review two applicants who both majored in Computer science - one from Greenwich with a 2.1 and the other from Warwick with a 2.2, I would take the Greenwich applicant.

Is it not obvious why I would take the Greenwich applicant?

And to the OP.
Yes these requirements are harsh but the reality is, these companies have a large number of applicants and you just have to deal with it. It might be considered unfair but this is how they filter out applicants.

I graduated from a top5 Computer Science University with a First class degree and I also achieved A*AA for my A levels. Now I have seen some companies that require a B in GCSE English. Guess what, I achieved a C... I was unable to apply to these grad schemes. Given that my degree was all in English - all the theoretical knowledge, ideas and projects including my dissertation. Would you say that this defeats the B in GCSE English requirement? Sadly for some companies, it does not. I have to live with it.
But I am happy that majority of the companies do not have this English GCSE requirement - most Investment Banking companies and IT companies such as IBM, Google, Microsoft, Accenture have no such requirement.

What?
If I was a recruiter and I had to review two applicants who both majored in Computer science - one from Greenwich with a 2.1 and the other from Warwick with a 2.2, I would take the Greenwich applicant.

This.

If you get a 2.2 it's either because you didn't work hard enough or you didn't have the necessary aptitude to get a higher grade. You can bitch and moan all you want about how challenging your degree is but at the end of the day your fellow course mates were able to manage 2.1s and 1sts - why couldn't you?

If anything it's worse getting into a top uni and not getting the standard/average mark because it shows you had the potential but didn't achieve whereas as someone with not so great A Levels and a 2.1 suggests they've probably overachieved compared to where they were when they left school.

Is it not widely accepted that it is easier to get a 2.1 from Greenwich than a 2.1 from Warwick?

Even though Warwick is indeed a better institute, because you've attended Greenwich does not automatically mean that you will get a 2.1. You still have to work hard for it.

You know right, it is just not statistically possible for like every single person to get a 2.1 or higher.

At some unis they would deliberately downmark people if there are too many people achieving 2:1s or higher.

And to be fair on the OP, how do you know if he was unlucky in a couple of exams (see above) or missed it by 1 mark. He may have also had problems outside of studying which affected his performance?

Because it's not statistically possible for every person to perform well enough to get one.

And to your last point, who really cares? That's life. Like I said, too many people can do exams without choking which shows that it can be done. The same excuses he may have could also be the reasons someone missed out on A's in their A levels and didn't get into their choice uni. Yet he seems to think because he performed better than them then, that he is better full stop. We've all got circumstances, again that's life.

Usain Bolt could lose the 100m on a bad day...if his bad day happens to be in the Olympic final that's tough. He's likely better than his competitors but it's still not going to get him the medal. Same with top seeds who go out in early rounds of tennis tournaments.

Point is, you have to take responsibility for your own failures and humble yourself to realise your weaknesses and improve instead of blaming the system as the latter will get you nowhere except in a bitter heap of self pity.

Yeah, but what you don't actually get. Usain Bolt will have another crack at it. For many if they miss the 2:1 cut off point, they are ****ed. It's not like they can go back and re-do their whole degree you know.

It's not fair I agree. But what are employers meant to do? Everyone will have a sob story as to why they didn't get the grades they wanted. Employers have to remain practical and they degree filters are just that - practical.

I would also have more sympathy if OP didn't come across as someone who thought he's the dogs *******s because he went to Warwick.

Devise a better/fairer recruitment system.

It wasn't always like this, 20 years ago, things were more relaxed.

Devise a better/fairer recruitment system.

It wasn't always like this, 20 years ago, things were more relaxed.



TBH, that was off putting.

The problem is we're in a completely different climate now - far more people have good degrees now than 20 years ago so because the number of eligible candidates have gone up, cruder methods have to be used to cull the numbers. That's why these filters and tests tend to be used by bigger companies while smaller ones only ask for CVs.

Plus on another level I don't think someone who has done MORSE at Warwick is automatically better than someone who has gone to a 'worse' university because a degree in itself doesn't say anything about a person's interpersonal skills, commercial awareness, how well they can apply their learning to real life situations etc.

A fairer recruitment system costs money. If the recruiters are getting the people they want from just arbitrarily capping it at a standard 2.1, then why make it harder for themselves? It's not fair, but it's not commercially viable.


Posted from TSR Mobile

And yet they ask for x amount of UCAS points?




Currently, IBM have the best selection process.

They fllter people out during the selection process.

They don't specify things like UCAS points, only a 2.1, and are doing fine. I do feel that a 2.1 degree should be used as a benchmark, because if anything that is what may have the most relevance to the jobs you may apply too.

HR in most MNC are just bloody lazy, and unimaginative.

Some do ask for UCAS points, some don't. It's quite a non-sophisticated way to assess applications but as someone pointed out it's the quickest most viable thing to do in most cases.

Overall though I think the 2.1 benchmark is reasonable, unfortunately it means some people have to lose out.

You should understand that A-levels are not really representative of someone's ability, many people flop A-levels for various reasons and do well at university and similarly lots of people pass with aswome grades at A-level but do crap at university.

Also "best" and "worst" are subjective, it depends on a number of factors as to what you're rating them for. Just because someone in a "low" ranked university gets a 2:1 or a first doesn't mean they aren't competent for a job compared to a so called RG graduate who studied the same course. Employers have many barriers in which they test the competency of a candidate such as 2 or so interviews or online tests in order to single out the best candidates for the job.

I find your level of snobbery disgusting, perhaps you will realise how stupid that ideology is once you're at university and start applying for jobs yourself. It's not just about education.

Getting a 2.2 in MORSE at Wawrick is harder than getting a 2.1 in many other similar degrees.

No one told him to do MORSE at Warwick.