The 2.1 requirement is a joke

I respect them for succeeding, but I don't respect those that fail.

Corporates are not the only companies out there mate.

Actually as my line of work is start up, I always get recruiters contact me on linked in for programming roles, now that I have years of experience.

You can also try and make it through self employment like Sugar did.

It just requires you to think outside the box, by spotting a gap in the market and exploiting it. Which is something university can't teach you btw.

You need a personality, "people buy from people". If he is all textbook and doesn't have the Harvey Spector charm, he needs to see a life coach or time to talk on the NHS.

Its called pipelining a candidate pool, all consultants have to do it. If you have an hour or two dialout a day to candidates. Its just a way of lead generation, you speak to 100s of grads a day thats just how the recruitment process works, its sending out bulk with the view to getting one diamond. Why don't you understand this, its on all recruitment forums, its on linkedin groups.

Yes, difficulties in degrees varies.

STEM subjects are harder generally with higher drop out rates.

Ivy league unis probably have more rigorous degrees, even that is questionable - outside of oxbridge, it is not that much different.

Sloane went to KCL and did geography, he found it really easy - the essay writing, and that is not because he is a genius either.

But you know what, employers do not discriminate, the whole system is a bit of a mess tbh.

I'm not sure anyone's suggested all degrees are equal, rather that 2.1s from lesser universities still require hard work. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

What you did 3 years ago isn't going to bother a company as much as what you did at uni studying since then. Not getting a 2:1 has limited your options but there are still jobs out there.

They are not mocking you. You seem to think you are better than what you are. Someone who got at least 2 A*s at a-level with high aspirations should have got a 2:1 fairly easily. As you said, you didn't perform and that has set you back. But you are the only one to blame, not companies you are trying to apply to.

Well you know what, I never had any recruiters contact me prior to racking up industry experience.

The point is, at least I am being contacted - it might lead to somewhere if I actually followed the leads up.

Finally, my industrial experience is not ****.

Even within the same course, and excluding Oxbridge, courses vary dramatically. I can only talk for maths, but Wawrick maths vs Manchester maths is already a vast gap, and those universities are consider close in difficulty.

I love how people like you start comparing the extremes and say X course at the University of Cambridge is harder than X course at London Met Uni...

No **** sherlock..

Yes, difficulties in degrees varies.

STEM subjects are harder generally with higher drop out rates.

Ivy league unis probably have more rigorous degrees, even that is questionable - outside of oxbridge, it is not that much different.

Sloane went to KCL and did geography, he found it really easy - the essay writing, and that is not because he is a genius either.

But you know what, employers do not discriminate, the whole system is a bit of a mess tbh.

Yes, but noramlly (and I really mean normally, I am not saying this applies to everyone), those who go to lower universities are typically less academic, so need to put more work in anyway. If someone who is good enough for a very high up university applies to a very low one, they will likely get a very good score with minimum work.

If this is such a problem, why doesn't the government only have a selection of universities accessible by the public, that all share exactly the same curriculum.

That way you will stop the problem form manifesting to begin with.

You can't blame people, especially 20 odd year old kids, if they make misinformed decisions due to a lack of guidance and maturity.

In hindsight its always easier to point out where you have gone wrong through experience, but its better to standardise everything in the first place.

TBH if you think success in the commercial environment is purely down to being a bookworm, you are gravely mistaken.

You wouldn't have the Alan Sugars in the world, if that was the case.

More to the point, if your goal in life is to go onto become an academic, than your point is very valid.

I had a private tutor, he managed my workload. I was just a torso, whatever he said, I agreed with. When I got something I just forwarded it on, I treated him like a worker. Any degree can be run like a business, same as doing with pharmacy at UCL. I never enjoyed studying and never will, its a means to an end.

TBH if you think success in the commercial environment is purely down to being a bookworm, you are gravely mistaken.

You wouldn't have the Alan Sugars in the world, if that was the case.

More to the point, if your goal in life is to go onto become an academic, than your point is very valid.

Some people don't enjoy studying mate, they thrive in the commercial environment.

I don't think that, and have never said anything like that at all.



I compeltely agree with you here. I have not mentioned employment or employers once on this thread.

Not everyone has access to a private tutor.

The reason why you also did a lot better this time, is because your study habbits have matured.

It's not all about intelligence, its about attitude and outlook in life. Parents, schools have a responsibility to drill kids the right way - blame them.

Well this whole thread is about graduate schemes, and the academic cut off points.