Physics 2.2 degree disaster?

That sounds about right. I'm on a PGCE now and so many science 'PGCErs' have quit so far as they applied for the course not having a clue what teaching was about and most of them had no idea about the work that needed to be done outside of the 9-3 teaching hours.
Competition is fierce in some PGCE subjects, but not so in others, meaning that people without real school experience get on to the course because they can't think of anything else to do.

How long ago did you do your PGCE? I thought competition was supposed to be fierce to get on the programmes these days. The OU PGCE is one their few courses where you have to be interviewed.

Brian Cox is presentable, is a good presenter, received first class B.S.c. and MPhil degrees in physics, and a PhD in particle physics from the University of Manchester, and already had lots of experience in media and science jobs before the BBC took him up for his show:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)

There are probably only ~5 or 6 places where PGCE science courses are hard to get onto. Outside of Maths/Science you will likely find it to be very competitive, but when I had my interview I spent a week preparing for it, had visual props, rehearsed and so on... and I don't know why I bothered. There were people there who had an awful interview (astonishingly awful) and got through. Maybe it was the 3rd class degree in forensics that bumped their points up?

Oh and I did it last year.

How long ago did you do your PGCE? I thought competition was supposed to be fierce to get on the programmes these days. The OU PGCE is one their few courses where you have to be interviewed.

I don't think competition is as fierce as people make out tbh, one of my friends got on a course 2 years ago with no teaching experience, a 3rd class degree in sociology and english lit from a low ranking uni, and poor A level and GCSE results. She's now a primary school teaching assistant because after a year working as a primary school teacher she got demoted, and hasn't been able to find a teaching position since. She also cannot distinguish between too and to, their, they're and there, and doesn't know her left from right (no joke!).

Another friend of mine got on a PGCE for secondary school ICT, he had a 2.1 in ICT from a very very low ranking uni, poor A level and GCSE results and is horrendous with English. He's failed his key skill tests (I don't know the exact name of them) in English, Numeracy and ICT (he has a degree in it!) 3 times in a row. So I really don't think competition is that fierce tbh.

Wow, where did she do her PGCE? I thought that almost all primary PGCEs only took on people with a 2:2minimum.

a mate of mine with a 2.2 is now a school physics teacher.

LOL because poor degree = retard right?!

There are loads of reasons why someone could do poorly in a degree, and they don't all come down to retardation.

I think it's fair to say that any normal, decent person who got the top grade in A level maths and physics could teach A level students to reach their potential in their A level exams.

Good qualifications don't imply that you'd make a great teacher. A 2:2 graduate with respect for their pupils and an interest in educating them will make a better teacher than someone who has succeeded to a very high level in their education so feels that educating A level students in "trivial" stuff is below them.

Obviously not all people who succeed in their education are stuck up, and not all 2:2 graduates would make great teachers. I'm just pointing out that it's unfair to write someone off on one thing that they've done badly.

I'm sorry

Perhaps I should have asked you to clarify before I went off on a rant.

No hard feelings I hope

And I agree. You really shouldn't feel bad about dropping a few % in some boring courses, and neither should the OP.

Many will following a good performance in a Master's degree, especially given the difficulty in recruiting candidates for Physics PhDs (other than the top few Universities).

LOL because poor degree = retard right?

Actually, it's "bad at maths = retard".

You can have a double PhD in Ancient History, hold the Sir Roger de Coverley Thingmajig Chair at de Havilland College Oxford, hold an Honorary Professor title at Harvard and be the world's leading expert on Anglo-Saxon housing construction with millions of book sales, but you can't fire through an SHL maths test in under 5 minutes without a calculator or perform triple integration while asleep and drunk? LOL THICKO

Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest.

At Birmingham City Uni. Yeah this was about 2 years ago now, so I think they accepted people with 3rd class degrees then.

People got into Durham for maths with 3rds.

Put simply it's a lot easier to get jobs as a maths/ science graduate with a 2:i/1st than as a humanities student and there's a lot of funding for post grad, not to mention that there's more demand in teaching and less supply.

Grad schemes that have 2.1 requirements automatically filter 2.2s and below. It's done by a computer, there is no human reading the application and deciding that actually physics 2.2 is better than media studies 2.1 etc. etc.

It's a good point that the Civil Service only asks for a 2.2. The others are pretty much no-go.

A 2.2 in physics is amazing, I don't think I would have even survived 1st year of it

A 2.2 in physics is amazing, I don't think I would have even survived 1st year of it

If your interested in the grad scheme route, have you have thought about the nuclear industry? Magnox grad scheme only requires a 2.2 and possibly nucleargraduates scheme aswell.

A 2.2 in physics is amazing, I don't think I would have even survived 1st year of it