2.2 means you're doomed it seems

Civil service jobs have only a 2.2 requirement iirc.

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.

A thread full of haters !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The system is far from perfect, but it works ..

I chose all the hardest modules in my course because I enjoyed them, others chose to go down the easy route. SO WHAT !! That's the system deal with it.

Everybody knows getting good grades is harder at better uni's and employers know this aswell.

Find me one person with a 1st from london met at a top bank.

You are aware of Rich Ricci, right? Obv not London Met but from a much lower ranked university in the US.

And I have a graduate job offer from a bank (Not IB, admittedly) despite not studying at a "top" university. Be careful not to spend too much time on TSR. It makes you think if you don't have AAA, a First from one of the top 10 universities and 12 months of work experience you are doomed.

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.

First off, don't say i'm trying to offend people when I'm really not. I at no point attempted to insult anyone. I feel you on the other hand are trying to insult me and I don't appreciate that. Writing comments like 'I, unlike yourself', seems like you're simply trying to take a stab at me. Sounds more like you have a chip on your shoulder about something. If you feel the need to simply be rude please don't read or bother responding to this.

Regardless you're a standing example of what I mean. I'm not saying you didn't work hard. But nobody in the history of my course has scored a 90% average at my university. I accept you may be a clever person. You probably are. The highest average anyone's ever got is 82%, does that not seem ridiculous? I'm at a very old university which has been teaching Computer Science for well over 20 years. Unless you're some sort of prodigy would you not agree there's something up there?


And what I mean by my friends going to lower ranked universities getting 2.1's doing much easier work, is that I'm about to get a 2.2. They are less able than me (hence why I have to help them so much, I did not say that help detracted me from my own studies). Yet they're on track for a 2.1, having generally much lower grade boundaries. I don't know what's hard to understand about that.

I found this earlier (by accident) and interestingly it shows that it is not always the 'bad' unis that make it easy... take a look:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/192163.article

I know it is about getting a first, but the effect will trickle down. I know it is this way for me, my final classification will be decided on either my best three modules from last year plus all of the modules from this year, or ONLY this year's modules. I then get whichever is highest, averaged. So obviously this means I can bomb years one and two and still pull a 1st out of the bag. I think basically this is what happens in many universities, but because the system is not standardised some people, like you, lose out when ALL or most of their modules count.

It is unfair, but sadly unless they standardise what results counts towards the final grade it is not going to change

Well reading that has pretty much made me regret every aspect of coming to Notts.

I think the idea that ranking correlates perfectly to difficulty is a little bit naive. No doubt institutions do vary, but I very much doubt they base how hard their course is on their rank. Rankings, although OK as a guide, include such nonsense as how environmentally-friendly a university is so they're not great. If you can show me some evidence beyond hearsay/anecdotes it'd make interesting reading.

If I had to guess, difficulty probably has a loose correlation to rank, and if you stuck it on a graph it'd look more like a seismometer readout than a mountain slope. And let's not forget that ranking also equates to higher spend on academic services and probably far better teaching, so you should find it easier to learn more. In that regard, it adds an extra dimension to degrees from different institutions, and makes grades more comparable in relative terms, especially given the way employers select candidates, which is based less on specifically how much you learned at university, or how hard your course was, and more on your ability and potential as an individual.

Think of it like the 'bad school' calculations at Oxbridge, which mitigate lesser results from candidates who went to poor schools but who are, at the end of the day, no less 'able' than someone who went to the best schools. I don't imagine employers actually do this, but that would be my justification for treating two people with different levels of education differently, and not bumping 2:2s from RG universities above 2:1s from polys. There's no guarantee that teaching standards differ any more than course difficulty, but I'd assume teaching standard and course difficulty do correlate, independent of rank.

Employers can't really be expected to visit each university to find out how difficult their course is, and how good the teaching is. So they need an arbitrary cut-off.

I think it should go on the list of 'thing they don't tell you BEFORE going to uni'...

I have many things on that list!

Universities just have fantastic PR teams it seems. Wouldn't be surprised if I get I get a letter tomorrow kicking me out now lol.

A 2.2 doesn't mean you're doomed, it means that you have to have stronger involvement in clubs and more work experience then someone who did the same course and got a 2.1. I find some graduate schemes are unfair where they ask for a 2.1, as you could get considered if you had a 2.1 form oxford brookes but not if you had a 2.2 from oxbridge. you could always apply for schemes which require a 2.1, tick the box that you have a 2.1 and in the interview prove that you could be a better candidate than someone with a 2.2. For getting jobs a 2.1 isnt going to make you stand out. Say there are a 100 applicants: 70 got a 2.1; you had a good attitude, work experience, leadership skills, involvement in clubs.... who's going to stand out?

Indeed, someone who has *just* missed out on a 2.1 and ended up with a high 2.2 from Cambridge, will have worked much harder than someone who just about scraped a 2.1 (like 2% more than the first person) from London Met.

It's unfair, it's ridiculous, and it needs to change - you can't filter by 2.1 or above when some universities just abuse the system.

Look at LSE, awarding 40-50% firsts to their economists, when UCL give out 17% and Cambridge around 30%. LSE's economics undergrads are not better than Cambridge's, and even if they were, there's no way in hell that they're *that* much better.

This whole idea of 2.1 or above is ludicrous in my opinion. I think instead of degree classifications, you should have a simple ranking next to your degree.

This way, you can't tweak it - a university can't just make it such that more of their students are ranked in the top half - only half of their students can be. Making exams easier wouldn't do a *thing*, as it would still remain true that the top 10 students are the only ones who receive the top 10 ranking.

BA University of Cambridge - Ranked 101/200
BA London Metropolitan - Ranked 99/200

Who would you pick?

A 2.2 doesn't mean you're doomed, it means that you have to have stronger involvement in clubs and more work experience then someone who did the same course and got a 2.1. I find some graduate schemes are unfair where they ask for a 2.1, as you could get considered if you had a 2.1 form oxford brookes but not if you had a 2.2 from oxbridge. you could always apply for schemes which require a 2.1, tick the box that you have a 2.1 and in the interview prove that you could be a better candidate than someone with a 2.2. For getting jobs a 2.1 isnt going to make you stand out. Say there are a 100 applicants: 70 got a 2.1; you had a good attitude, work experience, leadership skills, involvement in clubs.... who's going to stand out?

I think for entry requirements into graduate jobs there needs to be some standardised points conversion scheme, for example in econmics: 100 for a 1st from oxford, 90 for 2.1 from oxford or a 1st from Nottingham.........

Nonsense. If I work my ass off and then slack at uni and I get a third I am worse than someone who gets an upper second from a lower ranked university. If you are that hard working, work your ass off on the job market.

It's an option however chances are that they'll just see you as someone dishonest and withdraw their offer I think.

Would be grounds for automatic dismissal should you tell them you have a 2:1 and they take you at your word.

^ yes I am a law student hah.