Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I would take a 2.1 over 2.2 no matter what uni every day of the week
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    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?
    There is a material difference between 'pointless' and 'pretty pointless'. If there wasn't, I wouldn't have added the 'pretty'.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've been thinking about this, and of course the key thing is that it's very hard to be specific, because employers always consider a candidate in the round, and will look at things beyond just the cv, plus all employers are different and look at things in different ways. However, from my own experience when looking at grad cvs at work, we generally discard those with 2:2s, unless there is something else that really makes them stand out (eg great cover letter, masters, good experience), and only look at 2:1s and 1sts. Of course the reality is, we then generally narrow further to look at people with 2:1s/1sts from more prestigious universities - although as I said we don't just look at degree. So, probably better to have the 2:1.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olie)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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%.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sharp910sh)
    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 hazard a guess that you're doing a numerate degree.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aurora.)
    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.
    Interesting thought, but I don't think it holds true in general. Employers definitely take university in to account.

    (Original post by sharp910sh)
    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%.
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Interesting thought, but I don't think it holds true in general. Employers definitely take university in to account.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I hazard a guess that you're doing a numerate degree.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Civil engineering yes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    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
    Have you ever even looked at a grad scheme before? This is the problem with tsr, its the clueless leading the even more clueless.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If I was employing someone and I was given full independence to make the decision, I have to say that (for a graduate position), how well someone did in their degree would be the first thing I looked at.

    It wouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all but someone with a 2:2 would have to really, really impress me with a host of other skills etc to beat someone with a 1st. With a 2:1 and a 1st, the difference could be as little as 1% so I'd probably be more interested in other things to separate them.

    I got a 1st and I know how hard I had to work to get it. A 1st is basically a guarentee that the person is smart, can pick up concepts without too much bother, has a genuine skill at what they do, and has at least worked hard during their degree. In my experience you probably don't need all these things at a high level to get a lower 2:1 and someone with a 2:2 or lower has shown that they lacked at least one of these attributes.

    I graduated 4 years ago though and I've since worked with a lot of graduates and it's simply not a case of saying, the ones with the best degrees were the best workers. A lot of other factors go into it.

    I think it's always pretty important to remember that employers are individuals and will hold a wide range of opinions on what CV is better, who makes better workers and what's important. My gut feeling is that employers who got 1sts and have always had the best grades etc will value 1sts much more. Employers who maybe didn't do as well academically but shone as soon as they started working will place much less importance on your grades and possibly even be slightly biased against people with 1sts who put too much emphisis on their academic achievements.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aurora.)
    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.
    Yea fair points.

    (Original post by sharp910sh)
    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.
    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.

    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    Have you ever even looked at a grad scheme before? This is the problem with tsr, its the clueless leading the even more clueless.
    +1
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    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
    I don't agree just because you got good a level 3-5 years ago doesn't mean getting a 2.2 from a good university will do you any favours. In engineering, nearly all graduate scheme and graduate jobs ask for a 2.1 or first. If you are getting less than a 2.1 then one is clearly lazy, I mean if you pears are getting good grades, why are you getting a 2.2?

    You make it seem going to oxford or cambridge and getting a 2.2 will be grand and everyone will be offering you a job. Its simply not like that.

    For instance the employment or those who go into further study is 96.9 at the university of surrey compared to 92.6 for oxford and 95.2 for cambridge. Yet surrey is a "worse" university than oxford and cambridge. So why is surrey doing better? Going to oxford and cambridge doesn't mean a guaranteed job.

    REF: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...sity-graduates from 2008 to 2009
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sharp910sh)
    Civil engineering yes.
    So are you aware that many many subjects you'll never get a 90+? And that you can never actually be 'wrong'?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    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.

    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gordon1985)
    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.
    It is. But my point was questioning how much that would influence the employer.

    Also, I edited and added a bit to my post.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonstudent1)
    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.
    Once you meet the threshold, who cares? The employers with such cut offs may take a number of grads, but in terms of the number of organisations, they are few.

    Believe what you like about me, but I assure you I am well beyond applying to grad schemes.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Articles and guides:

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A-Z of careers Advice on choosing a careerCV writing helpCovering letter helpInterview tips

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    CGI logo

    CGI is open for applications

    "Offering a range of apprentice and sponsored degree positions."

    Deutsche Bank logo

    Deutsche Bank is recruiting

    "Thrive in an international banking environment"

    ICAEW logo

    Merck

    "Merck is a global leader in specialized pharma & chemicals – join us!"

    Army logo

    The Army is recruiting now

    "With hundreds of roles available, there’s more than one way to be the best."

    Bianca Miller, runner-up on The Apprentice

    Handle your digital footprint

    What would an employer find out about you on Google? Find out how to take control.

    Quick links:

    Unanswered career sector and employment threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.