The 2.1 requirement is a joke

I found A-Levels way harder then degree and I just did a set recently. Degree stuff is a walk in the park, Ive got the UCL pharmacy stuff infront of me. Doesn't seem hard at all, because you grasp the concepts in A-level, makes learning downhill!

The system isn't to be blamed as you said its the parents, personally you need to make them more accountable.

I'm not sure about maths but i don't think you have professional institutions accrediting the courses. With engineering for example, we have professional institutions which accredit the courses under the UK engineering council this ensures that several universities are teaching core modules which MUST be done at every university in order for that course to be accredited as a mark of quality (also one of the reasons why in things like engineering reputation of the university doesn't really mean anything, accreditation has a greater bearing).

Also it was the individuals choice to study at any of those universities knowing that the course is very theoretical, so if they end up getting a 2.2 that shouldn't be used an excuse and shouldn't make you entitled to anything like OP put it in his original post. Sure the course may have been harder in some aspects but again it doesn't mean people at the so called "lower" universities aren't competent enough in the subject.

Thats because you're doing pharmacy, try a medicine/dentistry degree

Most subjects aren't accredited though (an even engineering varies across degrees, altohugh I have to take other peoples word for that).

I study engineering myself, and im pretty sure all accredited universities teach very very similar content the only difference being each university may excel in one specific area of engineering compared to the other and this may be squeezed in as a little extra on top of the core modules other than that we all study pretty much the same content, otherwise if this wasn't the case employers wouldn't bother specifying that the degree should be accredited (which they do because they know this..).

As to what you said about maths, going more in depth in topics makes the course more theoretical.

I won't even try to argue with you on engineering as I know very little about it, but if by more theoretical you just mean going into more depth then that's fine, but I assumed you meant it in a theoretical vs practical sense.

I'm looking through graduate roles and a bunch of them require a 2.1 and wont even let you apply without one. What makes this so bad is that they often don't specify what you need a 2.1 in, just any degree.

I got a 2.2 in MORSE at Warwick. I looked at a graduate role for Fujitsu- 2.1 degree and 240 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels. I have 400 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels.

Why is the system so broken? I'm not going to pretend like I performed well at Uni, but don't mock me with these ridiculously low A-Level requirements and then say 2.1 in ANYTHING.

Your generalisations make me cringe every time. Kids aren't dumb at 17/18 if they haven't gotten 3 A*s, there's so many factors. The amount of incredibly bright kids from GCSE didn't do as well due to family, socialising, working etc and who the hell are you to generalise a whole group of people anyway? Life doesn't stop after getting A-Levels, if you can't perform at university you clearly don't excel at the course you applied for and should have no complaints.

A lot of people in my class had very good A levels. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is sometimes people choose to go to a certain uni despite its rankings because they simply just want to. Not because they're too dumb or whatever. It's a stupid mentality and it's high time people get over their superiority complex. So bloody what if they have 400 UCAS points? If they have a 2.2 it still means **** all, unless they can prove mitigating circumstances to potential employers. Hell in ten years A levels wouldn't even matter when applying for a job.

Had a place for Medicine at the University of Buckingham, the name just put me off completely. I applied in Jan because that was the Pharmacy deadline.

...

I take exception to Dalek generalising everyone with lower grades are dumber. It's pretty much stating the bleedin' obvious that clever kids generally get better grades.

I have a mate , law student , AAAAAA.

He is 0/20 atm with grad schemes.

Gets to the final round and is rejected.

You need luck.

Not at all I spent most my days at school getting kicked out,lol. It shows im willing to use physical intervention to get what i want. Not scared of conflict or a bit of violence. Getting a good A-Level IT grade will get you on a decent A-Level scheme with an IT company and a reasonable salary with a degree in 5 years in computer science guaranteed.

Maths Operational Research Statistics and Economics

A-Level IT doesn't get anybody anywhere.
I was actively discouraged from taking A-Level IT by my GCSE IT teachers with the suggestion that I take "something more useful".
I don't think it needs mentioning that they were right.

Imagine if u didn't listen to them Capgemmi school leaver £16-20k, you get a degree and a guaranteed job with there A-level requirement. Also remember teachers are influencers, examiners are decision makers. A teachers opinion is not worth the paper its written on, its clearly subjective and holds 0 weight in the real world. Also your the decision maker, its your future, you should your teachers accountable. People that teach in schools are often failures themselves, takes very little do so. The most successful and academic go into the city to make moolah. Listening to inexperienced individuals is the worst thing anyone can do.

I have no idea what you just said.