2:2 now not a 'good enough' degree?

[Cortina]

I saw a thread, earlier today, I think on AIBU. Someone was cruising for a 2:2 at Uni. They said that this wasn't enough to secure employment and many were agreeing.

In my day, insert old git icon , a 2:2, especially from a well regarded university, was a perfectly respectable degree.

Have things really changed so much?

Erm, what's changed is that there are 70 applicants for every graduate job.

yes.

in a nutshell!

I am very out of touch .

Does where and what you studied not come into it?

In my day a first from a less well regarded Poly, in a less well regarded subject, had less kudos than a 2:2 from a well regarded subject at Oxbridge.

its terrible, they tried to get everyone into uni to raise the standard of our workforce AND more importantly lower the unemployment statistics and now after years of hard work and thousands of student debt theyre all going to be unemployed!
This is such a mess and I am so sick of hearing about it.
Now they are saying there is going to be freeze on NHS front line staff (nurses} recruitment just as I am about to finish my nurse training which is my SECOND degree because the first one got me nowhere except in debt!

I don't think it's ever been good enough, certainly not for the milk round.
I have a 2ii also.

Sorry to hear that Lostlilly.

That's true Chateau but where you studied and what you studied also held weight. Probably too much actually. God help you if you were at a 'Poly' you were an object of scorn!

where you studied shouldn't come into it, what you studied should! So a 1st in (for example) Art History from Glasgow Caledonian University is unlikely to get you a job in the City of London when compared to a 1st in Art History from Oxbridge. But it should in theory put you above someone with a 2.2 from Oxbridge. And a 1st in economics should put you above a 1st in Art History when applying for a job in banking - again, in theory.

Also, most folk I know of say a 2.1 and a 1st are fairly interchangable, a 2.2 is not so good, and a 3rd suggests you didn't turn up for any lectures. But it does depend very much on the subject area (more important in sciences than arts by and large).

Lots of graduate schemes and post grad courses do require a 2:1 now - too many graduates and not enough jobs. And a lot of traditionally non-graduate jobs want a degree now just because they can - many admin and secretarial jobs require degrees as standard.

Where you studied definately helps but I also think universities are getting tougher because they know there are too many of us graduating, the degree Im doing now is a lot tougher than the one I finished 10 years ago and the uni Im at now had far less street cred thn my first one

I think more young people need to seriously look at vocational training/college as a serious alternative to university and push the government to allow for this (more apprenticeships, raising age restrictions, etc.).

In the US, degrees are expected to do call centre work.

So, increasingly and because there is no age limit on trade skills, many with degrees go back to college in their 30s and even 40s (Why not? You still have potential 30 more years of work!) to become skilled tradespeople.

This is very common and accepted there.

Needs to be more so here.

A 2:2 is not that great tbh. I have a 2.1 but in English, which many would say isn't that difficult. And really, it's no law degree. I have a friend who scored a brillaint first in our subject, languishing in the lower eschelons of the local council as there just aren't the jobs out there, especially for a degree that essentially trains or qualifies you for nothing

Wasn't there something on the news the other day about ONLY Russell Group unis being acceptable now?

Am a bit concerned as most of the RG unis are up North/Scotland etc and don't want the expense of sending ds to a London RG uni so only have about 3 to choose from.

Mine is Russell Group, but still a 2ii is a lazy arse's degree- not what city employers are interested in!

I have a friend who actually managed to get a pass degree

No a 2.2 doesn't really cut it anymore. The minimum 'acceptable' is a 2:1 but apparently something like 70% of people get a 2:1 so even that's not exactly outstanding.

It's always depended on where it's from - the number of employers who've looked at my 2:2 from Cambridge and said "we don't normally consider people with a 2:2 but obviously Cambridge is fine..."

Sadly I was wanting funding for a PhD and the research council rules state 2:1 or 1st only, end of. Did a MSc rather than resits (was off my head on pethidine during my finals).

Having interviewed people for jobs there are some universities I'd never want anyone from. The lad with a first from Essex who did filing by throwing all the papers (with file numbers written on) into one folder and then lying about it, and couldn't write a sentence to save his life (but was going back for postgrad) was particularly special.

Five years ago I'd tell any bright teenager to go to uni. Now... no.

I agree about the Art/ History etc, subject definately matters ALOT

This isn't that new a development, I graduated 15 years ago and you needed a 2.1 from a respected University to get a good Graduate job.

Wasn't there something on the news the other day about ONLY Russell Group unis being acceptable now?

If not now, then this will be increasingly the case I predict. Especially for graduate training schemes/milk round scenarios etc.

Notcitrus - what advice would you give to a bright teenager now?

I thought it was always like that. What is more scary is that you can fail to get a place at university with three A's at A level.

I don't think a 2:2 was ever really considered a "good enough" degree - even when I was going for jobs. With a 2:2 you couldn't easily get a research science post and you couldn't go straight onto a PhD.

OTOH, you were said to be a more rounded person - but mostly by people with 2:2s!

Holly you said: This isn't that new a development, I graduated 15 years ago and you needed a 2.1 from a respected University to get a good Graduate job.

Maybe but lots of my contemporaries got 'Graduate jobs' in well respected, large, companies in the late 80s and v early 90s. If they missed out on the milk round positions were usually there for someone promising at interview.

I thought it was always like that. I graduated in the last recession and there were plenty of graduates (including ones from Russell group unis) sitting around without jobs for a year or two. and those with 2.2s couldn't get postgrad funding or onto the fussier postgrad courses.

Don't think that a 2.2. necessarily means that you are lazy / a dunce; 20 years ago a friend of mine had proper flu during finals,and had to take exams in a sick room; he ended up with a 2.2 (pretty good in the circs.)

In the early '90s, grad jobs were also hard to come by, and this hampered his applications to top firms. When jobs are short, and applicants plentiful, employers are always going to use this sort of thing as shorthand for weeding out the best.

Yes.

Where you go AND what you get AND what it's in is important.

RG 2i in a 'respectable' subject I think is the minimum now AND evidence of a part-time job or volunteering work/involvement in extra-curricular activities are what it's taken for my contemporaries to get a job.