The 2.1 requirement is a joke

Probably the most idiotic comment I have read for a while.

A teacher is no different to a doctor in the sense that they are deemed as individuals with a huge amount of responsibility/power. Students place trust in them to do their job well, in the same way you would with a doctor.

The whole point of their job is to create productive members of society through education, by helping them harness their potential. If a teacher is not dong this, then their should be a reviewal process.

The point is, RGs are seen as good unis.

If someone goes through all that effort to get a masters following a 2.1 from a 'lesser uni', they should be taken into consideration. Currently with the way things are, they are not.

You can spin this however you want, but whatever way you look at it - it is biased towards those that have had the best starts in life. Which is unfair.

What you don't seem to understand either, it takes effort getting a 2.1. There is nothing stopping someone going to uni and getting a 2.2/underperfoming like they have in their ALs. The fact that they haven't shows maturity and the willingness to succeed by putting their past failure behind them.

This arguably more important in work than being an A grader as it shows how x person deals with set backs.

It is unfair, but shouldn't you confront the parents over their failures as human beings to do the fundamental things of parenthood.

It is unfair, but shouldn't you confront the parents over their failures as human beings to do the fundamental things of parenthood. Parents that are unselfish takeout huge loans to pay for a private education.

Yeah, well the corporate companies and their ****ty HR selection process is not helping matters.

There selection process needs to be a reformed, but its because of people like you it won't be. If in 5 years time they start looking at Primary school marks, you will be using the same argument as you right now "they are recruiting the best of the best". Backing it up with Jose's quote.

Too much of an "I'm alright jack mentality" going on.

Only because this is the only system you know, does not make it a good system. If everyone thought like you, we would be still using horse and carriages for transportation - because it works.

If the system was fairer, they wouldn't have too.

And it can be done - IBM is a great example of a corporate company who do not ask for UCAS points. All they ask for is a 2.1, which is fair enough.

HR are just lazy or elitist.

But if you get unselfish parents that are willing to take out huge loans to pay private schools. There are those unwilling to do so, its for the kids to confront the parents. As they are the ones making the decision. You dislike it confront the people that put you into the situation you are in. I do it all the time.

Its not HR that do it, its private consultancy firms that come in with this stuff. They sell ideas to big corporate companies and they just feed off it,lol.

I'm looking through graduate roles and a bunch of them require a 2.1 and wont even let you apply without one. What makes this so bad is that they often don't specify what you need a 2.1 in, just any degree.

I got a 2.2 in MORSE at Warwick. I looked at a graduate role for Fujitsu- 2.1 degree and 240 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels. I have 400 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels.

Why is the system so broken? I'm not going to pretend like I performed well at Uni, but don't mock me with these ridiculously low A-Level requirements and then say 2.1 in ANYTHING.

The reform has to be made by HR in corporates, not parents.

What you are suggesting is an absolute joke, and only serves to create an environment where the poor become poorer.

HR doesn't make it, its the Directors and CEOs. I got approached by a company this week, consultancy js really interesting. But they go to directors and ceos of corps telling them how they can improve their organisation, like setting up grad schemes. This is a start up, but the directors have worked for major players. People like them sell them ideas, they do PWC stuff.

http://veranperformance.com

See i was F'ing and blinding at my parents for not telling me this.

Well it needs to be reformed.

Stop trying to justify this **** elitist system in place.

It's because of it, the OP is now barred from many grad schemes. Show he retake his degree by your logic?

Whoever is in charge should have a rethink.

Nothing wrong with it, i will have two undergrad degrees. If you want something you just do it,

Its a billion pound industry, someone out there saw a need then decided to consult on it and make schemes. Other people followed..... Its called capitalism. Again if you had good friends they would tell you this, thats what consultants do. Statistically it enhances a companies profit and performance!

Different circumstances.

You are doing it for a career change, not to fix a 2.2.

Your current degree has helped you already get onto a grad scheme. Where is OP going to fork out 9k a year?

Well whatever, my original point stands, it is a **** system.

The way you justify it, because it's been adopted is very sheepish mentality.

£9k isnt that much divide it by 12. Im not in a grad scheme, experienced hire. They wouldn't touch me for a grad scheme, way to long ago.

Same applies in every other westernised country. Think of it like many payday loan companies with the same philosophy, then you might get it.

"Don't hate the player, hate the game",lol funny mentality but i get you.

I'm looking through graduate roles and a bunch of them require a 2.1 and wont even let you apply without one. What makes this so bad is that they often don't specify what you need a 2.1 in, just any degree.

I got a 2.2 in MORSE at Warwick. I looked at a graduate role for Fujitsu- 2.1 degree and 240 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels. I have 400 UCAS points from 3 A-Levels.

Why is the system so broken? I'm not going to pretend like I performed well at Uni, but don't mock me with these ridiculously low A-Level requirements and then say 2.1 in ANYTHING.