Cambridge graduate can't get a job.

woody01

snowqueen555 wrote: »

Is this from personal experience, seems like you have an axe to grind ^ not all oxbridge students are "posh snobs"

I haven't said anywhere that they are all 'posh snobs'. If you can see where i have then feel free to correct me.

Proc

Chomeur wrote: »

OK, I actually graduated about 20 years ago in Natural Sciences. I have had some job success but it has been a perennial struggle and I certainly don't seem to be able to find a job at the moment. My last job was at a dotcom which I got made redundant from as it imploded.

I think my real issue is that I sense more than a bit of hypocrisy from employers. They are always talking about the "soft skills" that Lavendyr mentions ("teamwork, initiative, organisational skills, determination and so on"). But in the jobs I've had I've encountered colleagues who were more obdurate, impractical, lazy, small-minded and inarticulate than I could ever have imagined. And that's the frustration, that people like this get good jobs and I can't.

Of course no doubt I'm going to be accused again of considering myself superior, and I was expecting that from my first post too. But I would ask anyone who accuses me of that, whether, assuming my perceptions were true, would you ever allow anyone to express them? Or would you just refuse to acknowledge that such a situation could ever exist?

Two things.

Firstly, you've mentioned that you've worked with lazy people etc. Well, what does that say about you if they're keeping the jobs that you want? I'd also dare to say that if that's the calibre of people that your ex-employers went for, it's little wonder that they can't afford to keep their staff.

The fact alone that "lazy" (I won't even get started on the fact that's just your opinion and you probably don't see how they are in 95% of their actual work) people are keeping/getting these jobs should make you ask the question "what do these people do that I don't?". They're probably very good at making their superiors feel good.

Secondly, I'm surprised that you've been working for twenty years but still haven't cottoned on to the fact that there's a lot more for employers to look at than a piece of paper with 2:1 stamped on it. Why haven't you mentioned any of your work successes? What are you successes? What have you achieved? What have you changed? You seem to be focusing too much on "oh but I'm Oxbridge now give me a job". Most employers will expect that you've done a lot since then, and if you haven't done anything particularly notable in a twenty year career then employers are going to question this. In the grand scheme of things, a few years at uni should, by now, be an insignificant part of your life.

But I would ask anyone who accuses me of that, whether, assuming my perceptions were true, would you ever allow anyone to express them?

Come on, man. You're what, in your 40s? Surely, I mean surely you've learned by now that nobody likes the c0cky little gob-sh1te that's twice as smart as them and knows everything? There are ways of saying things can be better, there are ways of saying how things can improve. There are ways of demonstrating your superior intelligence. I just think you're doing it all wrong and p1ssing a lot of people off on the way.

You sound like you're not willing to change, and that it's all employers loss that they aren't taking you. Look inwards before looking outwards.

woody01

amber1979 wrote: »

That's a very prejudiced and ignorant view. Have you ever been accused of inverse snobbery before? If not, you've been very lucky!

I went to a bloody good uni and I worked in a chippy to support myself and lived out of netto. However, I'm sure that you would write me off as a stuck-up cow who no doubt had rich parents and has never worked a day in her life, purely on the basis of my degree certificate.

Grow up or shut up, thank you.

Not at all.
From this post i would class you as pretty common and of average intelligence, as you have struggled to find an argument, and finished a pointless post with 'shut up'.

I am not an inverted snob at all.
I do believe however, that people like you and the OP think the world owes them because of their education at a great institution.

The OP has demostrated in their first post that they wished they were 'thicker' in order to gain work.
From that sentence, and the poor results gained, they certainly aren't a member of the 'working class elite' are they?

David_Brent

snowqueen555 wrote: »

Different universities have different measures of stringency, I know in my university several of my friends could delay their exams due to abusing the extenuating circumstances appeal. You could keep retaking exams or papers. Some universities do not allow this and only allow one retake with a cap of 40% maximum, but from what my friend tells me they have now got rid of this.

Exam papers are open to variation, this is the biggest issue in my mind, as I can go into an exam knowing that I only need to learn 30% of the course and I know I will know enough to pass. Its all dependent on these issues

I agree that you need better grades to obviously get into these universities eg oxford etc, so yes it is harder in that sense. But I disagree that the degree itself any more difficult than a degree in a lower league university. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim other than the taking exams scenario? Which to be honest is really up to the university itself, if they chose not to a allow this, then that was their choice. Though I must say I have never heard of this happening before, and certainlly the university I went to (out of the league of oxford etc) only allowed one re-take and that was it.

woody01

Of course no doubt I'm going to be accused again of considering myself superior, and I was expecting that from my first post too. But I would ask anyone who accuses me of that, whether, assuming my perceptions were true, would you ever allow anyone to express them? Or would you just refuse to acknowledge that such a situation could ever exist?

I can acknowledge 100% that you were gifted educationally because money alone (assuming you are not a member of the aristocracy), would not get you into Cambridge University.
I would also be happy, as an employer, if you demonstrated how this would enable the business to move forward.

I can accept that it is very difficult also to express emotion in context on a forum, and you didn't come across too well in your opening post, as it made you look aloof. Apologies if i got that wrong.

Do you live in Cambridge or the surrounding area, as it is not to bad on the job front for graduates here. The Science park for one is an excellent 'foot in the door' as many innovation businesses operate from there. (Yes i am also Cambridge based).

McGuiver

snowqueen555 wrote: »

I already agreed with this, but your statement has no point, what is the point you are making?

Yes society is often unfair, but the kind of attitude people on here are adopting (pretty negative and discriminative) isn't constructive or going to change things.

I don't think poeple fit into stereotypes so easily, every family is different, and as I said before, I think its rude to just to assume about the OP, we do not know them.

OPcame on here for help, by all means be critical, but lets not berate them or goad them into telling us what degree he has etc

Aside from stating the obvious with a selection of generic sound bites on how we shouldn't stereotype people, all families are different, please don't pigeon hole, I think you make a reasonable point: we do not know the OP. So, we can only base our opinion of the OP on the basis of what they say and how they describe their situation. And then you make another good point: be critical. I think that everyone has done this and it has dictated the direction of the thread.
It's just when you write about how good you are and how, because of it, you can't believe the situation you're in, it can be a bit inflammatory.

dizzydiane

To the OP, keep trying and don't give up. Try work experience or volunteering to put on your CV and it is better to play up your soft skills as well. I have been graduated 2 years and I am doing a job I love, even though it is not well paid I am trying to work my way up - just been appointed assistant manager- in addition I have recently started doing volunteer work (I am a trustee) and it is amazing the contacts you meet. I reccommend do-it! website or even on the jobcentre website there is a bit for volunteer work. It really increases your skills portfolio and you will get to meet a lot of different people. (This will also make you look like a nicer guy). Good luck!

Owain_Moneysaver

Chomeur wrote: »

OK, I actually graduated about 20 years ago in Natural Sciences.

That means that for work in natural sciences, your degree is out of date, and for anything else it's irrelevant. So wake up to the fact that graduates are now working for £12k p.a. and grateful for it.

bristol_pilot

In mid career, as you now are, you pitch for a job based on your achievements in the past 2-5 years (10 years max) - don't give any detail going further back than that. School grades are now irrelevant, degree grade irrelevant, degree subject and the fact you have a degree should still be mentioned as often this is part of min. job spec but don't expect to get the job based on it. Although you need to account for what you have been doing for all the time since leaving school, it's the past few years that employers care about. Mentioning school grades from a quarter of a century ago just makes you look foolish.

cheesypop

Hi all,

I don't usually post my opinions on these boards, but you have touched on a subject I feel strongly about.

First all I want it to be clear from the start that I don't believe that further education is right for everyone and people don't deserve jobs based purely on having a degree. I also believe that recently degrees have become relatively worthless because so many people have them.

What I do object to is people saying that standards at all universities are the same and that gaining a 2.1 at one university is the same as gaining one at another. This is simply not the case. There are no common standards, or rules set out by an educational authority setting a university syllabus.

I studied maths at a redbrick university and need an A grade at A-level in maths and further maths to win a place. I found the course extremely challenging. I have a friend who also studied maths at a university a lot lower down the league tables. He got a C at A-level maths and didn't study further maths.

He came out with a higher degree classification than me, however comparing our course notes it turned out that material he covered in his final year we covered in our first. There is no question that my degree was harder, even my friend admits this and constantly jokes with me that he turned out to be the smart one as he picked the university that was going to get him the best grade.

This is certainly an issue that the government needs to sort out.

I'm sorry for the rant, and realise this doesn't help the OP however it does makes me feel a little better