Which looks better on a CV?

Oh here we go. Hi grade snobs.

Throughout my time at university I worked solidly, and I do mean solidly. I am course to get to get a 2:2. Does that mean I did not work hard? No. Does that mean i'm not smart? No. It means that one of my weaknesses is that I cannot express my ideas clearly in writing.

I know plenty of people who have previous got 2:2's from 'Non-Respected' universities who have got well paid jobs by applying their knowledge, showing this in interviews. Getting a job isn;t just about being a top ten student, its about being able to apply the knowledge and skills you have got to a work place.

OP, chances are normal employers will look for the skills you have. When applying for a job it isn't necessarily what University you went to, its how you present yourself.

Not to be rude, but I feel we're going in circles. Can you actually read what I'm saying this time before replying? I'm open to your opinion, but you keep putting words in my mouth which are the polar opposite of what I've actually said!



The point I was making is that a decent 2.2 from a top university is likely harder to obtain than a 2.1 from some universities (both in terms of academic ability and effort). You're essentially labelling people who got a 2.2 at the likes of Oxbridge as lazy, yet it probably takes a considerable amount of greater effort for a 'regular' candidate to get a 58 at Cambridge than a 62 at London Met.

That is the point I'm making, not that a 2.2 is a good target to aim for. It makes life difficult as I have said repeatedly, but truth be told I'd rather have a 2.2 from Oxbridge/LSE/Imperial etc on my CV compared with a 2.1 from a bottom ranked university, because outside of auto-filters it'll carry more weight (especially after your first job when you have some professional experience).

But, to clarify (again), it's obviously best to aim for the highest mark possible.



Clearly you didn't read my post properly. I'll quote the first line from the post you have just replied to;

"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."



Everyone knows those league tables have to be read with a large pinch of salt, as they do not take in to account what it is that people are actually doing 6 months down the line. I could be working on a 15k salary and still tick the 'graduate employment' box. To be blunt, your average Oxbridge graduate is going to be aspiring to a better starting position than your average Surrey graduate, which will heavily bias the figures. Also consider average salaries and see where that takes you.

To suggest that career prospects are better from Surrey (a perfectly good university by all accounts!) are better than Oxbridge is pretty laughable. I say that coming myself from a university that regularly makes the exact same boast about employability rates being higher than Oxbridge, and knowing full well where some of the so called 'graduate employment' votes come from.

The point I was making is that a decent 2.2 from a top university is likely harder to obtain than a 2.1 from some universities (both in terms of academic ability and effort). You're essentially labelling people who got a 2.2 at the likes of Oxbridge as lazy, yet it probably takes a considerable amount of greater effort for a 'regular' candidate to get a 58 at Cambridge than a 62 at London Met.

I strongly disagree. If you have the aptitude to get into these kind of universities in the first place then you should be capable of getting a 2:1 at the very least. And relatively speaking getting a 2:1 in an ex-poly will be of the same difficulty to a candidate which does not possess as much academic ability. It's all relative.

And speaking as someone who has been to both types of university, I can say that assuming one degree is harder purely because of the uni's status is flawed thinking.

Don't sugar coat it to make yourself feel better, you might have worked hard in your mind but obviously not hard enough. Anyone can get a 2:1 if they put in the work, a 1st may require some innate ability but you got a 2:2 because you probs got pissed up every night.

Yes I get pissed every night and I have never worked hard enough. Thank you for that wonderful character judgement. You just made my sugar coating myself a lot better. I'd rather not be successful with a 2:2 than some keyboard warier who can make dramatic judgments of people with no prior knowledge or understanding of them.

Just so you know for the time I spent in February working 8am-1am on my dissertation (And the time I spent on it since early June) I actually achieved a 2:1. In the weeks before each assignment submission I spent days on end in the library trying to perfect things off. So yes, putting the work in did pay off in that occasion, but the majority of my work with similar effort hasn't/

And to finalise things I have been to a pub 7 times since January. Havn't got drunk once. Not exactly every night is it.

Thanks for the enjoyment you just gave me writing that though, does make me think that yeh, not having a 1st of a 2:1 in cases may be good for me. It lets me evaluate the good things in the life, the non-judgmental and the non-arrogant things. Like having a life and being socially acceptable to others.

Yes I get pissed every night and I have never worked hard enough. Thank you for that wonderful character judgement. You just made my sugar coating myself a lot better. I'd rather not be successful with a 2:2 than some keyboard warier who can make dramatic judgments of people with no prior knowledge or understanding of them.

Just so you know for the time I spent in February working 8am-1am on my dissertation (And the time I spent on it since early June) I actually achieved a 2:1. In the weeks before each assignment submission I spent days on end in the library trying to perfect things off. So yes, putting the work in did pay off in that occasion, but the majority of my work with similar effort hasn't/

And to finalise things I have been to a pub 7 times since January. Havn't got drunk once. Not exactly every night is it.

Thanks for the enjoyment you just gave me writing that though, does make me think that yeh, not having a 1st of a 2:1 in cases may be good for me. It lets me evaluate the good things in the life, the non-judgmental and the non-arrogant things. Like having a life and being socially acceptable to others.

You weren't revising efficiently then. I'm dumb as **** but I can guarantee that I could have got a 2:1 in your subject with 3-4hrs revision a day.

With respect, being in the library 8am-1am does not sound like it would yield decent results. I would suffer burnout very quickly and my focus would suffer.

What course do you do?


Posted from TSR Mobile

I strongly disagree. If you have the aptitude to get into these kind of universities in the first place then you should be capable of getting a 2:1 at the very least. And relatively speaking getting a 2:1 in an ex-poly will be of the same difficulty to a candidate which does not possess as much academic ability. It's all relative.

And speaking as someone who has been to both types of university, I can say that assuming one degree is harder purely because of the uni's status is flawed thinking.

Let me ask some simple questions, which university are you at? What grades are you getting and do you have a job?

Have you ever studies at Oxford or Cambridge? Do you know how hard it is? Or are you assuming?


I am at Sheffield and have a future job paying £32k, and I am on track to get a first. A similar friend to me, is on a 2.1 and has the same job. They like Sheffield. If everyone was from oxford and cambridge, they would all be the same, they wouldn't know any different. A mixture of students is good from many universities.

Hence my use of the term "'regular' candidate". Your argument literally entirely supports what I have said

Sigh, to quote my first line (again); "Not to be rude, but I feel we're going in circles. Can you actually read what I'm saying this time before replying?"

For some reason unknown, you've entirely ignored the points in my post and attempted to attack me instead. I graduated with a 2.1 from a mid-table and currently work for Deloitte, not that I'm sure how any of that is relevant. But no, I'm not a 2.2 from Oxbridge if that's what you were getting at.

At what point have I anywhere suggested or implied that people can't get decent jobs from Sheffield, or anywhere else for that matter? What argument do you think we're having? Don't bother replying if you're just going to ignore the question, frankly it grows tiring. This isn't what we were talking about! When have I argued against a mix of students? Where are you getting this from?

Seriously, you need to address your inability to follow a conversation. This literally isn't related at all to anything I have said. "If everyone was from oxford and cambridge, they would all be the same", what on earth has this got to do with anything?!

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.

I do not see the junk you are talking about my friend. At the end of the day getting a low grade from any university is not good.

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'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 just come across as extremely ignorant and a bit stupid if you can't understand the point either of us are making. Your argument has no real basis, if you want to argue otherwise then do so but don't throw your toys out the pram when people disagree with you. Plus making personal attacks is more than pathetic - you sure you're not drunk?