Graduate Jobs, is it worth applying ?????

SUPERMCNATURAL

i recently posted about a family members degree, and was looking at grad positions for her today, and to my amazement if she does end up with a 2:2 honours degree, there is next to no options for her.

i find this completely crazy... i know a 2:2 is not the best, but by completing a 4yr honours degree to me that shows commitment and other qualities which im sure organisations would require, also a good wealth of work experience along the way.

i was wondering, if you recieved a 2:2, would you chance your arm and just apply for grad positions with minimum of 2:1 requirement...... surely her experience and personality would count for something??????

scubaangel

I think most employers set the bar at a 2:1 because they have to set it somewhere.

Of course personality, will count be don't forget everyone who has completed their degree at 2:1 and higher has exactly the same experiences and has arguably showed greater commitment to the degree course than a grad who has 'only' achieved a 2:2

SUPERMCNATURAL

fair point ,im just amazed at the options availble. i myself am graduating this year with a masters, even if i had left last year( which i considered and looked at jobs) there was a wealth of grad schemes i could of went for. it seems silly to me that some who narrowly misses a 2:1 could only go for positions like sales advisors ? the job which she does just now, i can see why shes so upset its really 4 years down the toilet to end up doing what she does anyway

goggle

depends on the company really - where I work (and employ graduates!) the minimum degree is set corporately and an applicant without the minimum reqt won't get past the application form - we have so many applicants we can be choosy as to who to take to stage 2, 3 etc
If its a direct entry-job rather than a graduate scheme there may well be more flexibility esp if she has direct experience

Oldernotwiser

It will also depend on her work experience and how she has spent her time whilst studying. Someone with a 2:2 who has been actively involved in voluntary work/student organisations/work experience placements will be in a better position than someone with a 2:1 who has just studied and worked in McDonalds.

melancholly

it will depend on the scheme - for some, they have so many applicants that anyone with less than a 2:1 will be chucked out as a first others. whether or not that's fair/sensible is beside the point as that is what will happen. if they say 2:2 or above, go for it. there are also plenty of good jobs/careers that don't come from the milkround. what sector is she looking at?

[Deleted User]

My workplace has a 2:1 minimum for graduates (we don't have a graduate scheme per se).. still they let me in with my 2:2, MSc and 2 years experience. Then again, my MSc needed a 2:1 minimum also. Didn't take long to get round that.

I still get rejections, now with 5 years of corporate experience, because i don't have a 2:1... ah well

homerhotspur

I was just about to post a similar question with a slightly different slant. My son has completed a 3 year physics degree at one of the better(top 10) universities. We think it is border line whether he will achieve a 2:1 or 2:2 degree. Our query is surely he should be considered for jobs even with a 2:2 from this Uni ahead of some of the lesser establishments where someone has obtained a 2:1 degree. This would seem even more unfair where the 2:1 degree was obtained in one of the softer subjects. To take this argument to extremes , surely a 2:2 graduate from Oxbridge would be preferred by employers than someone with a 2:1 from somewhere ranked 120th in the Times guide etc? But, as has been stated before, most of the good graduate type jobs specify a 2:1 requirement.

Lokolo

homerhotspur wrote: »

I was just about to post a similar question with a slightly different slant. My son has completed a 3 year physics degree at one of the better(top 10) universities. We think it is border line whether he will achieve a 2:1 or 2:2 degree. Our query is surely he should be considered for jobs even with a 2:2 from this Uni ahead of some of the lesser establishments where someone has obtained a 2:1 degree. This would seem even more unfair where the 2:1 degree was obtained in one of the softer subjects. To take this argument to extremes , surely a 2:2 graduate from Oxbridge would be preferred by employers than someone with a 2:1 from somewhere ranked 120th in the Times guide etc? But, as has been stated before, most of the good graduate type jobs specify a 2:1 requirement.

It hasn't mattered where I work which university you go to, just the degree specification.

I am doing Computer Games Programming and have coped doing the same work as a grad who got a 1st in Maths at Cambridge. We had to take a competency test before we joined, which was good enough for them.

I think it might be different if he was going into a field of Physics rather than Software Engineering.

goggle

homerhotspur wrote: »

My son has completed a 3 year physics degree at one of the better(top 10) universities. We think it is border line whether he will achieve a 2:1 or 2:2 degree. Our query is surely he should be considered for jobs even with a 2:2 from this Uni ahead of some of the lesser establishments where someone has obtained a 2:1 degree. This would seem even more unfair where the 2:1 degree was obtained in one of the softer subjects. To take this argument to extremes , surely a 2:2 graduate from Oxbridge would be preferred by employers than someone with a 2:1 from somewhere ranked 120th in the Times guide etc?

So you're saying that some universities are better than others & that people who get a degree from one of your less-preferred establishments are less capable than your son & thus should be treated as 2nd class citizens?

Some people from the less-academic unis have a better education than an Oxbridge grad - I have interviewed many graduates in my line of work & the best by far in recent years have been from Brunel, University of Hertforshire, Northumberland, Glamorgan & similar universities. The content of their degree is no less than somebody from Oxbridge (accredited by external professional bodies) & invariably more practical!

homerhotspur

goggle wrote: »

So you're saying that some universities are better than others & that people who get a degree from one of your less-preferred establishments are less capable than your son & thus should be treated as 2nd class citizens?

Some people from the less-academic unis have a better education than an Oxbridge grad - I have interviewed many graduates in my line of work & the best by far in recent years have been from Brunel, University of Hertforshire, Northumberland, Glamorgan & similar universities. The content of their degree is no less than somebody from Oxbridge (accredited by external professional bodies) & invariably more practical!

No need to get 'touchy' about it. I was not suggesting anything about people being treated as 2nd class citizens. It was purely a genuine technical query about how these things work. My son had to get straight A's at A level to get into his University whereas the, dare I say 'lesser' establishments may accept B's C's etc so it just seemed odd that if you then went on to get a 2:2 rather than a 2:1 it would render all your previous GCSE and A level results as somewhat pointless whereas someone who got a slightly better degree at a less academic Uni would be able to apply for the job.

You say that the content of the degree is no less than somebody at Oxbridge. I wasn't aware of this and had been led to believe this was not the case. So, if this is correct, I can more understand the policy.