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

Blacksheep1979

This may sound a little harsh (and it probably is - but life is harsh) but if someone gets a 2:2 it either meansthey weren't committed, not studying enough, or that they aren't s competent as others. Companies have a duty to their shareholders to do as well as possible and whilst someone may be exactly what they need and get a 2:2 the extra costs of interviewing these people is significant and not overall worth it.

Moral of this - work hard and get the best degree you can, if you don't make the grade then hey the big bad world isn't what the nice labour gov promised you and people don't get medals for coming last in reality.

SUPERMCNATURAL

its quite interesting how emotive this subject is, and honestly didnt expect this many replies.

i have one observation though, many posters have said if you got a 2:2, you must be markably less academic than someone with a 2:1, having looked at her grades again, can you honestly say, for example, someone who receives 58.% compared to someone who gets 60% that there is a huge difference between these two students??????

i can say that when i got my honours degree i didnt work remarkably harder than anyone else in my class, and some of them received 2:2's

aqueoushumour01

maybe he or she could go back for a masters. will be difficult getting on a grad scheme with 2:2.

[Deleted User]

SUPERMCNATURAL wrote: »

its quite interesting how emotive this subject is, and honestly didnt expect this many replies.

i have one observation though, many posters have said if you got a 2:2, you must be markably less academic than someone with a 2:1, having looked at her grades again, can you honestly say, for example, someone who receives 58.% compared to someone who gets 60% that there is a huge difference between these two students??????

i can say that when i got my honours degree i didnt work remarkably harder than anyone else in my class, and some of them received 2:2's

Ahh this happened to me, i got an average of 58.5% - just not quite good enough. I got markably higher scores in my MSc exams, but there's no grading in masters, you either pass or you don't.

Still quite proud of getting 92% on a 3rd year computer science exam (during my masters.. i'm a genetics graduate originally)

Rosie75

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

They are meant to be at the same level.

However, I have found that some universities give out distinctions for marks significantly lower than those I have to maintain for the Open University. I have to get an average of 85+. Which suggests that I have to be better than students at other universities to get the same result.

I assume this is the OU? The marking scale is simply different, not harder. A lot of universities don't even (or very rarely) give out marks over 80.

Rosie75

whacks wrote: »

Im not sure how the rankings work for Uni's? Is it based on how good the teaching is and how good the overall structure for learning is?

If so surely someone getting a 2:1 from a lesser University shows greater commitment/ability then someone getting a 2:1 from a top University.

The league tables use a combination of factors, but usually the rankings are based on things like student satisfaction with the course (taken from the National Student Survey, which has been criticised by some for its methodology), spend per student, staff-student ratio, drop-out rate. There is no scutiny of course content, or independent evaluation of teaching (beyond the comments made by students in the survey). It stands to reason, therefore, that Oxbridge will always top these league tables since they offer one-to-one teaching, are well-endowed and have low drop-out rates because their students are highly-motivated. If you look at the statistics for research (which essentially tells you about the calibre of the staff employed in different departments) you will find a rather different story - in many subjects Oxford and Cambridge are not in the top five.

Torby

I think the crux of the matter for this coming year will be the fact that there's not as many jobs out there or as many firms hiring....I think if the cut off is 2:1, then the admin person looking at applications doesn't look/read any further into the app and bins it, this may get even worse now with the number of gaduates chasing fewer posts, who knows there's that many graduates out there they may raise the bar to a 1st, after all, they can pick and choose.

Its even harder for some of those careers where you need a year in industry before you graduate especially as thats not as readily available now because of the recession, look at how law students were affected, lots of the major firms cut back on trainee places, you may have your LLb or GDL, but without a training contract you can't practice, next year there will be double the number of students chasing half the places...I can see a 1st becoming the minimum spec...

SUPERMCNATURAL

its funny you say that torby, i was thinking the same thing, the more gradates the more strict it becomes, i was reading this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4289662.ece

about how companies are dropping their standards. i also was speaking to a few family members, one of which is a director of a large company, and he said that he'd rather takes someone with the right characteristics for the job rather than just the level of degree, he went as far as to say they at times have accepted graduates who have 3rds, because overall they were more well round than someone who has a first, no job throughout uni, and basically no life outside of uni, he stated that this type of person can be far more difficult to integrate into an organisation, and has less developed social skills.

It seems there are no right or wrong answers here, its should be a mixture of personality academic ability, and experience. I just feel its a shame that there is such a stigma around gaining a 2:2, that many feel that they have wasted their time at uni. When infact a 2:2 is nothing to be ashamed of. I think if i had got a 2:2 i probably would have been disheartened it seems as though alot of companies write you off before you can really show what you can do within any specific job role.

Blacksheep1979

Rosie75 wrote: »

I assume this is the OU? The marking scale is simply different, not harder. A lot of universities don't even (or very rarely) give out marks over 80.

I'll call bull on that - both Universities I've attended (both redbrick so that may be the issue here) have given marks over 80%

olly300

Rosie75 wrote: »

I assume this is the OU? The marking scale is simply different, not harder. A lot of universities don't even (or very rarely) give out marks over 80.

The two universities I went to used a bell curve to moderate marks for every exam. As well as lowering or raising marks in general, they would purposely fail a few people on the borderline particularly those they hadn't seen attending or participating in lab classes and tutorials.

The OU due to the distance people have to travel to tutorials and the difficultly that this can cause can't do that.