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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dbkey)
    The world is not black and white but unfortunately you'll be amazed how many dumb asses are involved in recruitment.

    Some article on TSR remarked how a recruiting manager thought a 2:2 was a made up degree classification.

    The problem is there are just too many applicants chasing too few jobs that in order to cut down their time, they stipulate a cut-off of a 2:1, regardless of where it's from, rather like the government's scheme to get people to teach, by offering greater incentives to those with a 1st (even from McDonalds) than a 2:1 from MIT.

    Likewise, to those in the know, you can't get much better than maths at Warwick in the UK but for the general public, some recruiting managers would prefer history from Oxford for a risk job within a bank because it's Oxbridge.

    The BBC is particularly guilty of this. Take this article for instance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22447965

    Despite Imperial coming top for Civil Engineering, the headline still states Oxbridge being top in 7 "key" subjects, these being English language and literature, philosophy, modern languages, geography, maths, linguistics and history.

    IMO, Civil Engineering is certainly more "key" than philosophy, geography and history, It's possibly even more "key" than english langauge, literature, modern languages and linguistics.
    Point of order- the article doesn't deny that Civil Engineering is a key academic discipline.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    My point in response to Sharps rather scathing review of anyone who dared get a 2.2, was that to say a candidate with a 61 from London Met is automatically better (all other things equal) than a candidate with a 59 from Oxford, simply because they have a 2.1 and the Oxford guy has a 2.2, is hardly fair. The actual universities are just examples of opposite ends of the table and are entirely interchangeable. University standards do vary, this is no secret. Of the two above, are you genuinely saying (assuming you have no other information about them) that you think the Met candidate is the stronger of the two?
    The London Met student is 'better' in that he has applied himself more despite having more limited academic capabilities than the Oxford graduate who, while obviously extremely gifted, can't have worked as hard if he did not achieve a 2:1. Most certainly the Oxford graduate is capable of that and more. You can't make a direct comparison because it'd be like directly comparing boxers in different weight divisions.

    I'd see the degree as a demonstration of one's attitude to their work. As an employer I'd want to hire the candidate who applies himself fully and is committed to doing the best they can. I would not be impressed by someone who performed below average despite actually being extremely intelligent.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    2:1 is better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Let me remind you of the first sentence of your post once you ran out of anything worth saying; "Let me ask some simple questions, which university are you at? What grades are you getting and do you have a job?". Shortly afterwards you persisted to list your resume. As if that is somehow relevant to the matter at hand? It wasn't me that tried to make this personal.

    What annoys me isn't that you disagree, that's fine. This wouldn't be a very interesting forum if we all agreed. It's the way you simply ignore every counter argument (despite me responding to yours) and instead attack statements I haven't even made about Sheffield etc. Multiple times.
    You seem to have mixed me up with someone else
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nomes89)
    The London Met student is 'better' in that he has applied himself more despite having more limited academic capabilities than the Oxford graduate who, while obviously extremely gifted, can't have worked as hard if he did not achieve a 2:1. Most certainly the Oxford graduate is capable of that and more. You can't make a direct comparison because it'd be like directly comparing boxers in different weight divisions.

    I'd see the degree as a demonstration of one's attitude to their work. As an employer I'd want to hire the candidate who applies himself fully and is committed to doing the best they can. I would not be impressed by someone who performed below average despite actually being extremely intelligent.
    So essentially you're giving the Oxford guy a handicap? He's disadvantaged for having got a place at a top uni? He'd have been better off going to London Met where he would undoubtedly perform better? If this is the case, I don't see why anyone should stretch to achieve a place at a good university!

    I guess where we differ is that I wouldn't consider a guy with a high 2.2 from Oxford to be 'below average'. He's below average compared to his peers at one of the top universities in the country, but relative to the student population as a whole? I don't think so. Compared to a low 2.1 from one of the worst universities in the country, he's achieve considerably more in my eyes.

    It comes down to this; you're walking in to a job interview. You can either have 59% from Oxford University on your CV or 61% from a bottom 10 university. Which are you going to take in with you? If you go for the 61%, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    (Original post by Nomes89)
    You seem to have mixed me up with someone else
    Yes I did, apologies I assumed it was the guy I had quoted who replied. Don't really see why you jumped in, I can only presume that you haven't read through our convo if you think I was the one out of line in that little quarrel. Like I said, he can disagree, but the way he has done it is woeful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    the awful truth is if you get a 2.2 from warwick you probably should have worked a little bit harder.
    There's usually some provision for rounding up a %age point or 2 to the next classification, dunno what it is at warwick off the top of my head.

    The hidden assumption behind these threads is that you'll find it easier to get the marks at a lower ranked uni but I don't think that's necessarily a given.
    I would take it a step further and say its harder, cant get good marks a top uni how can you at a bad one?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    So essentially you're giving the Oxford guy a handicap? He's disadvantaged for having got a place at a top uni? He'd have been better off going to London Met where he would undoubtedly perform better? If this is the case, I don't see why anyone should stretch to achieve a place at a good university!

    I guess where we differ is that I wouldn't consider a guy with a high 2.2 from Oxford to be 'below average'. He's below average compared to his peers at one of the top universities in the country, but relative to the student population as a whole? I don't think so. Compared to a low 2.1 from one of the worst universities in the country, he's achieve considerably more in my eyes.

    It comes down to this; you're walking in to a job interview. You can either have 59% from Oxford University on your CV or 61% from a bottom 10 university. Which are you going to take in with you? If you go for the 61%, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.



    Yes I did, apologies I assumed it was the guy I had quoted who replied. Don't really see why you jumped in, I can only presume that you haven't read through our convo if you think I was the one out of line in that little quarrel. Like I said, he can disagree, but the way he has done it is woeful.
    I think the point people are trying to make is that the 58% wouldn't even get you the interview.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    So essentially you're giving the Oxford guy a handicap? He's disadvantaged for having got a place at a top uni? He'd have been better off going to London Met where he would undoubtedly perform better? If this is the case, I don't see why anyone should stretch to achieve a place at a good university!

    I guess where we differ is that I wouldn't consider a guy with a high 2.2 from Oxford to be 'below average'. He's below average compared to his peers at one of the top universities in the country, but relative to the student population as a whole? I don't think so. Compared to a low 2.1 from one of the worst universities in the country, he's achieve considerably more in my eyes.

    It comes down to this; you're walking in to a job interview. You can either have 59% from Oxford University on your CV or 61% from a bottom 10 university. Which are you going to take in with you? If you go for the 61%, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.



    Yes I did, apologies I assumed it was the guy I had quoted who replied. Don't really see why you jumped in, I can only presume that you haven't read through our convo if you think I was the one out of line in that little quarrel. Like I said, he can disagree, but the way he has done it is woeful.
    I wouldn't call it a handicap, he controls how well he does by the work he's put in. If he gets a 2:2 (barring exceptional circumstances) then he hasn't put the work in and doesn't deserve favourable treatment for getting into Oxford; the whole point of going to a uni like that isn't just to 'get in'. Although people would argue a degree somewhere like there is 'harder', these students have access to a much better education - this is what many people forget. So in fact if anyone is handicapped it's the London Met student who arguable doesn't receive as high standard of education.

    Also don't get me wrong, the Oxford candidate is not below average but that's my point. Such a bright student shouldn't be getting a 2:2 that is below average. He's only achieved more than the average because he managed to get into that uni in the first place but then after that has failed to live up to his potential. As an employer this would be a red flag for me personally. In an altogether different argument I don't believe the most 'intelligent' person is necessarily the best person for the job in any case so I guess we just disagree.


    And sorry I think I got quoted in one of your messages to that other guy and thought it was aimed at me too. My bad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nomes89)
    I'm pretty sure you were suggesting that a 2:1 from a non redbrick was equivalent to a 2:2 from Oxford a few posts ago on the basis that the Oxford degree would be 'harder'. So no, my argument does not support what you said.

    If an Oxford candidate gets a 2:2 then this not down to lack in capability/the course 'being harder'. Although I wouldn't go as far as to say this candidate was lazy, a lack of application in my mind would be the main reason. I refuse to believe an Oxford student who worked to the best of their ability would get anywhere near a 2:2.
    You're assuming that the Oxbridge admission process is watertight, and that everyone who is there deserves to be there. I very much doubt that is the case. Even the interview (which is supposed to make the admissions process more accurate by sorting out those who are good on paper from those who would do well in a tutorial system) can quite easily be argued to merely favour confident candidates with good interpersonal skills. Many candidates who could do very well at the university cannot feel comfortable enough with strangers in a 20-minute interview to really demonstrate what they're capable of. Likewise, a less able but more confident student may present better answers. 20 minutes (possibly times 2) really isn't enough time to gauge the talent of someone at a transitioning time in their life (17-19).

    Of course, most people who are there do deserve to be there! But if someone doesn't even manage to get a 2:1, then they are probably less intelligent than their interviewers thought.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    2.1 is better unless from oxbridge
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also many here are assuming thay if you put in the effort that you will get a 2:1 which isn't always the case if your department/uni follows a bell curve grading where no matter how good the students prepare a certain peecentage will always get a 2; 2 or below.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olie)
    Are you guys serious? So you're saying a 62 from London met would look better than a 58 from Warwick? I find it very hard to believe that an employer would be that stupid and perhaps they should change the system of automatically rejecting a 2.2s if that's the case.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Most graduate schemes state a requirement of a 2.1 minimum degree. If you do not meet this requirement, you can't reasonably expect to be offered an interview.

    I think perhaps you have misunderstood the nature of the degree grade anyway. You are assuming that it is a measure of intelligence. While in a broad sense this is true, it is not the most significant piece of data it offers. In my year group at Warwick I have absolutely no doubt that any one individual could have got a first had they put in enough work. The reality is, assuming you got into a university about right for you, your grade is actually a measure of how hard you work rather than how intelligent you are, and this is something that employers are much more interested in.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    I think the point people are trying to make is that the 58% wouldn't even get you the interview.
    Different debate. I entirely agree the issue with the 2.2 is you'd likely get filtered out before interview without anyone even seeing your CV in many cases. Acknowledged that right at the start.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nomes89)
    I wouldn't call it a handicap, he controls how well he does by the work he's put in. If he gets a 2:2 (barring exceptional circumstances) then he hasn't put the work in and doesn't deserve favourable treatment for getting into Oxford; the whole point of going to a uni like that isn't just to 'get in'. Although people would argue a degree somewhere like there is 'harder', these students have access to a much better education - this is what many people forget. So in fact if anyone is handicapped it's the London Met student who arguable doesn't receive as high standard of education.

    Also don't get me wrong, the Oxford candidate is not below average but that's my point. Such a bright student shouldn't be getting a 2:2 that is below average. He's only achieved more than the average because he managed to get into that uni in the first place but then after that has failed to live up to his potential. As an employer this would be a red flag for me personally. In an altogether different argument I don't believe the most 'intelligent' person is necessarily the best person for the job in any case so I guess we just disagree.


    And sorry I think I got quoted in one of your messages to that other guy and thought it was aimed at me too. My bad
    Ahh right, looking back I copied you both in, my mistake. Sorry about that confusion!

    I can see where you're coming from on the whole potential thing, but personally I'd take the Oxford grad hands down every time assuming all else is equal. Guess we'll just have to disagree on that one.

    Anyway in reality if we were recruiters faced with a LM 2.1 and a Oxford 2.2, we'd probably just move on down the massive pile of CVs and not bother looking at either. Bad times for graduates!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Point of order- the article doesn't deny that Civil Engineering is a key academic discipline.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree with dbkey that Civil Eng is more key than some of the other subjects mentioned so why wasn't the heading labelled "Oxbridge / IMPERIAL are top in key subjects"?

    Perhaps the BBC only know about Oxbridge?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Olie)
    Are you guys serious? So you're saying a 62 from London met would look better than a 58 from Warwick? I find it very hard to believe that an employer would be that stupid and perhaps they should change the system of automatically rejecting a 2.2s if that's the case.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Probably reject both as many other met students would be applying with higher than a 62.
    • Specialist Advisor
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Specialist Advisor
    (Original post by zaps)
    a)2.2 from a top 10 Uni, or b)2.1 from a Met?
    I realise its not accurate to judge without subject etcetc, just which do you think?
    If you search online for graduate jobs, the majority will ask for a minimum 2:1 degree but do not classify which universities they'd prefer their grads to come from.

    If you're interested to know whether going to a university higher in the league tables affects employers decisions when choosing graduates, have a look at their employment prospects.

    Some Met universities might be the best at your chosen subject which makes it harder for you to compare them with a university that might be top in general, but not that great for the same course.

    Hope this helps.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by curiousquest)
    I agree with dbkey that Civil Eng is more key than some of the other subjects mentioned so why wasn't the heading labelled "Oxbridge / IMPERIAL are top in key subjects"?

    Perhaps the BBC only know about Oxbridge?
    Because Oxford was top in 7 and Imperial just 1?

    There is no great conspiracy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M1011)
    Evidently you have nothing worth adding to this conversation.

    Good luck with life, unless you're drunk atm I have a feeling you'll need it. You're entitled to have a different view, but your inability to follow the conversation is simply astounding.
    I can follow your the conversation but clearly you speak rubbish. If you want to look up to people from Oxford and Cambridge who got 2.2 so be it not my problem. A man who has a 2.1 from a lower end university is better, by far. Have you ever been to Oxford or Cambridge? No. So you cannot say the course is harder. If a man is getting a 2.2 at Oxford or Cambridge he is clearly not pulling his weight of has some issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LexiswasmyNexis)
    Because Oxford was top in 7 and Imperial just 1?

    There is no great conspiracy.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Actually Oxford was "key" in four subjects, not seven.

    English language and literature, philosophy, modern languages and geography. Are they all more"key" than Civil Engineering?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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

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

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