Is a 2:2 from Imperial well regarded by employers?Watch this thread
Probably not in itself but not all employers would have the same view.
lol, no. Absolutely not. A Desmond is a Desmond - the fact it's from Imperial doesn't change that. Essentially, by getting a II(ii), you would lose any benefit of the 'name' of Imperial. It also doesn't negate the widespread II(1) requirement from various post-degree employment and training options.
However, I do disagree that 2.2 is bad. In my opinion, a 2.2 would be equivalent to getting a C grade at A-Level. It's not bad and it still keeps some options open. Sure, you won't be able to apply to a lot of graduate schemes or postgraduate courses, but I have seen quite a lot of graduate schemes that accept 2.2s and in fact, there are some that don't look for any particular grade requirements. What you need to understand is that life isn't about some percentages or numbers on a piece of paper. Some people seem to think that if you get a 3rd or 2.2, then you're undesirable or your life is ruined, but there will always be opportunities for people at all different levels.
I'm quite surprised by the replies
I know I'm not the best reference, actually having a 2.1 (for the record, Y1 high 2.2, Y2 mid 2.1, Y3 mid 2.1), but
1. My opinion from my experience is that the Imperial name gets you places that a 1st at a uni outside of (say) the UK top 50 honestly does not (whether fairly justified or not), and this is even more the case with Oxbridge and the very top US unis IMHO... I'll go even further and say that there are many cases where a 3rd is _viewed_ more highly than a 1st at a uni whose name is low enough on the pecking order (probably at a point where the person hasn't got any perspective on it, and not everyone knows the full list of the 2022 Times Higher Education top 10/20/100/... off by heart). This is why I'm surprised that the responses here are one-sided. I'd expect that if I had this conversation with my group of folks from all around with all sorts of backgrounds, that there'd be a bit of a mix of sentiment. And speaking internationally, the big hitting names carry far in the wind, again whether justified or not. Same applies if you worked at Google, Goldman, MIT, Doctors without Borders, Tesla, BBC, Hollywood, etc
2. The UK grading system is not as well known internationally; how well do you know the statuses of unis outside of the UK and their grading systems, and how to compare? In software engineering, your CV gets you through the first door (so yes, having highlights including "1st", or even better an explicit generic transferrable metric e,g, "top 5% in cohort", helps a lot), then you have interviews and by then you'd expect some interviewers haven't even looked at where you studied... by the time you've been in industry a handful of years, your education may well feature quite low down in your CV and discussions, and what is 5 years in a 40 year career?
3. I have had colleagues (both those I met in industry and grew along with at school/uni) who have ended up with 2.2s and 3rds. In my experience a common contributor was lack of dedication/focus/mental-health, or sickness/misfortune, in the sense that if you took all the students, you'd hope that almost all of them had the potential to do well in exams. Give them another shot and they may well fare better and those that did well can do a lot worse. I've had friends move between two grades: 3rd to 2.1 (and possibly the other way), and 2.2 to 1st. It happens. That can mean flipping between the top and bottom quartiles/quintiles. If an employer or institution is smart enough to look past the letters on a piece of paper, they should have no problem with assessing the candidate for who they are... after all, if you maintain your probable ambitious personality, then chances are that your assessors come from a similar background. Generally speaking, if you had the capability to get into a good institution, and they did their job well in the interview process, then that quality will not suddenly dissipate. Same applies for jobs in industry. This addresses "is it better?" in the sense of "is a student holding a 2.2 at X more capable/intelligent/effective/excellent than one with a 1st at Y". Honestly, it's not clear-cut. In fact, Imperial is particularly relevant _because_ they have an interview / detailed filtering process. If they didn't have this then the argument weakens without the hierarchical classification of life paths. For example, some European (and other) countries have a very egalitarian process and structure and standing across their (academic) institutions, whereby the hypothesis is "any 1st is better than any 2nd".
Personally I'm not bothered about what is a better choice for someone, because that's something subjective and case-by-case and attending Cardiff may have very justified reasons over taking Imperial, but I think what's worth pointing out is that "A 2.2 at X is worse than a 1st at Y" is not a reasonable statement that someone can make with confidence in its broad validity.
In my early years (both while applying for internships and while in industry), I toyed around with displaying or not displaying my grade in my CV. I cannot recall once the grade coming up in (interview) conversations inc "I don't see a grade in your CV, what did you get?". I personally think that that is really, really telling. I'm sure it's very industry specific, but my situation will apply to some other industries and job types. Right now I can see that I don't display my grade in my CV or LinkedIn (I had to check because I couldn't remember): I sign it off with "BA Computer Science" and it's on the second page of my CV (yes I've been happy with having two-page CVs until recently where I'm starting to actually care less about talking about myself on paper so keep things to the point... so again when someone - even an 'expert' - tells you "this is the right/best way", try to have an open mind, and even experiment if you feel comfortable with it).
... Actually I got into a pretty damn good and highly competitive internship for my second year off the back of just a 2.2 to show for myself. I probably didn't put it on my CV though: I'll give the nay-sayers that... it's something that people would tend to be shy about, and perhaps appropriately so. Let's say the 2.2 never came up in the application process: it was moot and just served as a kick up the bum to try harder next time, because the inner competitive spirit says so.
I was internally bitter about not getting a 1st, because I worked pretty hard to try to get one whilst having a full on social life, alas I didn't make the cut. Sure enough a couple years later I had much more important things on my mind, and materially I don't know if a 1st on paper would have changed any aspect of my life path apart from a cocky voice banging on in your head saying "u da best" every few minutes, maybe even try it out as a pick up line sometime.
Hope this helps someone gain perspective and have an alternative viewpoint borne out of practice. Maybe I've misread any sarcasm in here, but need to balance the debate all the same.
Do you know your result yet?