Which looks better on a CV?

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.

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?

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.

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.

You seem to have mixed me up with someone else

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.

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.

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'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.

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

I think the point people are trying to make is that the 58% wouldn't even get you the interview.

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

Point of order- the article doesn't deny that Civil Engineering is a key academic discipline.


Posted from TSR Mobile

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

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?

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?

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.

Because Oxford was top in 7 and Imperial just 1?

There is no great conspiracy.


Posted from TSR Mobile