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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterSnake)
    Hello all,

    I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.

    I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.

    I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.

    In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?

    I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.

    =======================

    On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
    Hey man

    I agree with everything you've written. There are simply too many people picking easy modules, studying easy degrees at universities where the standard of students is quite frankly poor and getting 2.1's. Certainly at my university they scale the marks down if everyone does well in a module so it really does make it harder to get a 2.1 if the standard of students is high.

    I think they should scrap all the pathetic degrees out there that people are able to do and as you say use a standardised measure of testing which makes it a level playing field for everyone. Alternatively they could let people with 2.2's apply for a graduate scheme but add more assessments in the A/C.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mbbx5va2)
    Hey man

    I agree with everything you've written. There are simply too many people picking easy modules, studying easy degrees at universities where the standard of students is quite frankly poor and getting 2.1's. Certainly at my university they scale the marks down if everyone does well in a module so it really does make it harder to get a 2.1 if the standard of students is high.

    I think they should scrap all the pathetic degrees out there that people are able to do and as you say use a standardised measure of testing which makes it a level playing field for everyone. Alternatively they could let people with 2.2's apply for a graduate scheme but add more assessments in the A/C.
    Thank you, I agree. Try explaining that to the guy who's got apparently 90's in all of his modules, coming from a poor university claiming that the system is perfect. If I'd known this is how recruitment worked, I would have gone to a lesser ranked university and studied there.

    Ohh well, what's one to do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterSnake)
    Thank you, I agree. Try explaining that to the guy who's got apparently 90's in all of his modules, coming from a poor university claiming that the system is perfect. If I'd known this is how recruitment worked, I would have gone to a lesser ranked university and studied there.

    Ohh well, what's one to do?
    I guess all you can do is stay positive, build work experience and network. I know somebody with a third in maths who got a job as a trainee underwriter for a well known big company by networking.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    A friend of mine did computer science at Notts, got a 2:2, and now he works at Nandos... :teehee:

    But yeah, I'm at Notts and on track for a 2:2. I don't expect to get onto a graduate scheme, but I'm going to do another qualification to get a decent job most likely. Either way I'm not too worried yet as I have a whole year left to panic about it!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ekudamram)
    Firstly, I would like to clarify: I said you stand to offend some people, not that you are trying to offend.

    When I said 'I, unlike yourself' that read exactly how it was meant to.
    Doing Maths, I am doing a subject where 100% is an attainable grade, so people getting 90% is possible. However, before you come back again with this tripe of it simply being a hallmark of a lower institution, I have a friend doing PPE in Oxford, who got 100% on some of his papers, and another friend who got 100% in a Latin exam in Warwick.

    Whilst not a chip on my shoulder, I do get incensed when I read comments from people like you who seem to think that the name of the institution should come before the grade itself - 2:1s and Firsts are hard to get, regardless of where you got them, and should be respected as such.

    I am not a prodigy, I just work very hard.
    I have always had an interest in maths, and enjoy studying it, but including lectures, I easily put in 50 hours of work a week, so I genuinely think I deserve my marks, and they are not a sign of a lower ranked university (Should a 72 look better on a CV against a 94 simply because 94s at 'good' universities are unheard of?)

    As a side note, I'd be concerned if I was a 'friend' of yours, you don't seem very supportive - they are probably very proud of the results they got, and would be upset if they felt you were trying to take that away from them.
    You didn't get a 2:1, so you're taking credit for other peoples.

    Put that on your CV. "I may have only got a 2:2, but I did help others get a 2:1"

    The grade boundaries are universal:

    70 + - First
    60 - 69 - 2:1
    50 - 59 - 2:2
    40 - 49 - 3rd
    34 - 39 - Pass
    < 34 - Fail

    Whilst the exams are set and marked by universities themselves, they are sent off and checked (at least mine are, anyway) and made sure they are up to scratch, otherwise they could give away firsts to everyone, their ranking would improve, and no-one would care.

    You'll leave with a 2:2, it's better to accept this and focus on other aspects you have which will make you employable (being whiny and blaming the system for your misgivings maybe not)
    For such a supposedly smart person, you're pretty ****ing dense. The name of an institution should give context to an awarded grade because the difficulty of achieving a particular grade varies between universities. The grade boundaries might be the same, but as students sit different exams between institutions, the difficulty to achieve say 70% is of course different. 50 hours is not exactly some unusually high amount of hours to work, in fact I'd say it was about average where I went.

    You might deserve your high marks, but the fact is you are being cheated by the system by studying a maths course that's a piece of piss to get high marks on. Do you think had you gone to Oxford you'd be averaging 95% there? The Swansea maths past papers have been posted here before and in comparison to my particular institutions (Cambridge) they were extremely pedestrian. Therefore it is an absolutely valid and just point that the OP is making. It is unfair to arbitrarily have some cut off grade applied to all degrees when the difficulty between degrees is so vast.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand the argument here, yes a 2:1 from a prestigious uni is better regarded to one from a lower ranked university. However the reason they are better regarded is because they may require a higher level of work. If you aren't capable of achieving success within this heightened level of work that doesn't mean you should be automatically be getting a head of people in lower ranked universities, who've worked hard to achieve there 2:1 or better, just because of the name of the university.

    To sum it up, stop whining because somebodies done better than you.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SimplyMatt)
    To sum it up, stop whining because somebodies done better than you.
    I don't agree with that. However I also don't agree with the OP either. Every Individual who applies to university gets to choose which institute he wants to go to (albeit the university has to accept them).

    The OP probably choose Nottingham because it is part of the Russell group and has good name, so was under the impression it would provide him head up against the competition in terms of employment. However it is his mistake to think he could do less work and expect to get 2.1.

    The standards are higher at some universities so you're expected to work harder. The OP understood this when he applied and so do the other students who apply to lower ranked universities.

    Also Nottingham had entry requirements BBC for the past 5 years (excluding this year), it had the lowest entry requirements for any of the Russell group universities. :P Which makes you wonder

    Note: I am not implying anything.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterSnake)
    However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.
    I feel like this might be the problem right there. You might be going to a higher-tier university, but if the lecturers don't bother to mark your work properly, then you're not going to get the mark you want even if you put the effort in. I don't have a helpful answer, but I feel like us lot at less prestigious universities might be luckier. I mean at my uni there are strict mark schemes and I've always found the marking to be fair.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It is very unfair it seems employers don't really know what they're talking about.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SimplyMatt)
    I don't understand the argument here, yes a 2:1 from a prestigious uni is better regarded to one from a lower ranked university. However the reason they are better regarded is because they may require a higher level of work. If you aren't capable of achieving success within this heightened level of work that doesn't mean you should be automatically be getting a head of people in lower ranked universities, who've worked hard to achieve there 2:1 or better, just because of the name of the university.

    To sum it up, stop whining because somebodies done better than you.
    Yes but the point is if this person had gone to a lower ranked uni they probably would have got a 2:1. Now they can't apply for certain jobs because they went to a better university? Where people who have worked equally as hard or even less can apply, it makes no sense.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    You're certainly not doomed with a 2:2. I have one (in engineering rather than computing) but I've managed to get myself 3 good graduate jobs (and rejected a couple of others) without too much difficulty. Yes, some companies will reject you out of hand initially, which is very frustrating, but ultimately if you're someone worth employing you'll find employment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    University marking is unfair and flawed and this cannot be argued against. Even if we dismiss the thought that certain universities are easier than others to get high marks which in the case of this thread is a prestigious uni vs a lower ranked uni, there is still unreliable marking which exist within a uni itself. For example at least for my uni, for each exam there are at least 2 markers and despite the fact that the two markers state they discuss with each other in terms of what they are looking for to gain marks, there is fundamentally scope for the two to mark the papers and come up with completely different marks although it will not be a BIG difference however it can be the difference between a 2:2 and a 2:1. I know this for a fact because I was subjected to it but I won't go into details. Of course this statement tends to be for the essay based subjects unlike subjects which contain a lot of problem solving where you either wrong or right etc such as calculation questions.

    The reason behind this I believe is because when you reach the high level education stage of university, depending on the subject, there is no longer a clear cut answer and all students are technically academics so to speak and great answers tend to become blurred depending on the individual marking your work unlike GCSE and A-level whereby it is not rare at all to score 100% as there are clear cut answers i.e. markschemes. I find this problem is further amplified when the exam questions I usually get is those "how far do you agree" or those "to what extent" questions where there is literally no perfect answer!

    I wouldn't like to argue that lower ranked uni's are easier because I don't have hard proof so I can only go by what others have said. However I think its important to realise that the so called unfairness which I have no doubt exists, is caused by the level of education at university with no clear cut model answer mixed in with the way lecturers teach things/mark things which there is no wrong/right method of doing and finally the syllabus which no two university is the same. I think this thought was justified by a member earlier on this thread which stated that LSE gave 30% of their students 1st in economics whereas Oxford had 13% of something (can't remember clearly). Now you can't really argue that LSE is a low ranked uni can you? But I think you can explain this phenomenon with the explanation I gave above.

    What I am trying to say is that it may be true that lower ranked unis are easier to get 2:1 / 1st which I am not implying because I don't have proof. But even if it was, it is not because its from a low ranking uni but more because of the lecturers and the teaching/marking involved that caused this. This phenomenon can equally appear in a high ranked uni like LSE mentioned above!

    In terms of recruitment wanting only 2:1 and above, I can see where you are coming from that its unfair that I went to do a "harder" degree compared to others which did an "easier" degree but I only got a 2:2 and so can't apply whereas they got a 2:1. However don't forget that the recruiters can only form a system of recruitment with the information presented to them which in this case is by class classification given by universities unless you are on about the high flying jobs which have target unis then this is another matter.

    Anyway chin up and keep looking, I understand the basis of this thread but I think its more important to actually be pro active about the matter and sooner or later you will land a job!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    well for biological sciences, there are plenty of MSc courses out there with a 2.2 requirement (some of them at good unis too)... so presumably the same can be said for computer science, OP


    its not the end of the world, just means you need to do post-grad to scrub out that 2.2 lol.. like it looks like i'm gonna have to...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Your attitude of self entitlement will do you no favours in the workplace, but I can understand your disappointment.

    Obviously things go wrong with exams, mine definitely haven't always gone how I wanted them, but you have to accept it and move on. Whinging about others at other universities will make no difference to YOU or YOUR life at the end of it all.

    You are also sort of proving your own point, that a degree is worth more from a 'good' university because it is harder. Which is why you didn't get the grade you wanted, because for whatever reason you weren't up to the standard that your university wanted, to attain a 2:1.

    So yes, maybe you would have been better off getting a better grade from a 'worse' university. Or rather, working to your level rather than overshooting.

    I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean it to be. But I guess my advice is to focus on yourself, comparing yourselves to others only leads to bad things.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MasterSnake)
    Hello all,

    I go to the University of Nottingham and am about to complete my BSc (hons) Computer Science. However I'm probably going to get a 2.2 from the looks of things.

    I've looked around at jobs and it's really rather ridiculous. Companies don't seem to care what uni you're from, as long as you have a 2.1.

    I just don't understand this though- for instance I have a couple of friends who go to two much lower ranked universities than myself and are probably going to achieve their 2.1 in the same course. However throughout their standard of work has simply been easier.

    In fact I helped them a lot through their studies, not to mention it just doesn't make statistical sense. Considering unis all use averaging systems to state their grade boundaries, our which has much higher entry requirements than theirs will inevitably have higher boundaries no?

    I'd understand if there was a standardised measure of testing like A-levels where we all sit the same paper. However the grades are all rather arbitrary- so much so that I've had a lecturer tell me that they generally just look a bit of work, and give it a grade depending on their personal judgement. It's not as if there's even a rigid mark scheme.

    =======================

    On a side note, now that I am doomed with a 2.2, anybody know where I should go from here? It seems most of the large companies are out of the question, any recommendations?
    unfortunately, thats just the way it is, same goes for subjects as well. Most companies dont bother specifying either, its just a ****ed up system and you can see why the British educ system is losing credibility internationally, people mostly want to take the easiest option in education and this is what the system is geared towards and employers encourage this by not discriminating much between uni's subjects etc. just simply ask for 2.1 degree
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ekudamram)
    Firstly, I would like to clarify: I said you stand to offend some people, not that you are trying to offend.

    When I said 'I, unlike yourself' that read exactly how it was meant to.
    Doing Maths, I am doing a subject where 100% is an attainable grade, so people getting 90% is possible. However, before you come back again with this tripe of it simply being a hallmark of a lower institution, I have a friend doing PPE in Oxford, who got 100% on some of his papers, and another friend who got 100% in a Latin exam in Warwick.

    Whilst not a chip on my shoulder, I do get incensed when I read comments from people like you who seem to think that the name of the institution should come before the grade itself - 2:1s and Firsts are hard to get, regardless of where you got them, and should be respected as such.

    I am not a prodigy, I just work very hard.
    I have always had an interest in maths, and enjoy studying it, but including lectures, I easily put in 50 hours of work a week, so I genuinely think I deserve my marks, and they are not a sign of a lower ranked university (Should a 72 look better on a CV against a 94 simply because 94s at 'good' universities are unheard of?)

    As a side note, I'd be concerned if I was a 'friend' of yours, you don't seem very supportive - they are probably very proud of the results they got, and would be upset if they felt you were trying to take that away from them.
    You didn't get a 2:1, so you're taking credit for other peoples.

    Put that on your CV. "I may have only got a 2:2, but I did help others get a 2:1"

    The grade boundaries are universal:

    70 + - First
    60 - 69 - 2:1
    50 - 59 - 2:2
    40 - 49 - 3rd
    34 - 39 - Pass
    < 34 - Fail

    Whilst the exams are set and marked by universities themselves, they are sent off and checked (at least mine are, anyway) and made sure they are up to scratch, otherwise they could give away firsts to everyone, their ranking would improve, and no-one would care.

    You'll leave with a 2:2, it's better to accept this and focus on other aspects you have which will make you employable (being whiny and blaming the system for your misgivings maybe not)
    Good grades are obviously harder to get the better the university, so OP has a fair point.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    A friend of mine did computer science at Notts, got a 2:2, and now he works at Nandos... :teehee:

    But yeah, I'm at Notts and on track for a 2:2. I don't expect to get onto a graduate scheme, but I'm going to do another qualification to get a decent job most likely. Either way I'm not too worried yet as I have a whole year left to panic about it!
    Well that's reassuring...

    For real though? I mean I've got a few interviews lined up now. Fingers crossed something comes through. I'd be pretty gutted otherwise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss Charli)
    Your attitude of self entitlement will do you no favours in the workplace, but I can understand your disappointment.

    Obviously things go wrong with exams, mine definitely haven't always gone how I wanted them, but you have to accept it and move on. Whinging about others at other universities will make no difference to YOU or YOUR life at the end of it all.

    You are also sort of proving your own point, that a degree is worth more from a 'good' university because it is harder. Which is why you didn't get the grade you wanted, because for whatever reason you weren't up to the standard that your university wanted, to attain a 2:1.

    So yes, maybe you would have been better off getting a better grade from a 'worse' university. Or rather, working to your level rather than overshooting.

    I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean it to be. But I guess my advice is to focus on yourself, comparing yourselves to others only leads to bad things.
    Honestly there is not attitude of self entitlement. I was just pointing out a flaw in the system. I agree - getting a degree at a 'better ranked' establishment is harder. I just wish employers saw that too. However to them it seems like all 2.1's are equal, when in reality a 2.1 from a Russel group uni is not the same as a 2.1 from an ex-poly.

    You're right, I shouldn't compare myself to others, it's just difficult knowing that I'm not even being considered because my degree classification is lower than someone else who is as or less able than me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by uttamo)
    Good grades are obviously harder to get the better the university, so OP has a fair point.
    I wouldn't bother arguing that guy- he thinks the system is perfect, whilst being the posterboy for lower ranked universities handing out higher grades - averaging 90%. It's unheard of at a university like mine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by newts2k)
    unfortunately, thats just the way it is, same goes for subjects as well. Most companies dont bother specifying either, its just a ****ed up system and you can see why the British educ system is losing credibility internationally, people mostly want to take the easiest option in education and this is what the system is geared towards and employers encourage this by not discriminating much between uni's subjects etc. just simply ask for 2.1 degree
    You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. Yes some jobs specify a degree in a certain field however many don't.

    Same goes for A-Levels. I've seen some students get A's in the likes of 'sociology, media and ICT' all being considered soft subjects. And get places for certain university courses whilst a student taking 'maths, physics and chemistry' be turned down.

    It's really rather ridiculous. Hindsight's a *****. If I'd known this 5 years ago, I would have picked nice easy A-levels. Chilled in 6th form, got my A's, gone to a mediocre university doing a mediocre course and got my 1st, only to then all of a sudden be considered by all of these larger firms for grad schemes.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Featured recruiter profiles:

    CGI logo

    CGI is open for applications

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

    Quick link:

    Unanswered IT and technology 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.