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?

Doesn't it make sense that if a tiny percentage of people get 1sts then a similar percentage should get 3rds?

I disagree that laziness at Uni = laziness in the workplace. For some that might be true but not for me. I was lazy about doing revision hence poorer than I could have got exam results - but I was a good worker in the work place.

I also agree that poly, ex poly etc. degrees don't matter so much if they are particularly strong in a particular field - the poly I went to (now a Uni of course) was amongst the leaders in several fields, including the one I chose to study. As it happened, the course I wanted to do, I could only do as a sandwich course at the Poly - I couldn't do it at a Uni.

In terms of letting people fail - there is now an ethos at Unis that students are customers. Much is done to help them achieve now, that wasn't done when I was a student - and part of the reason for this is that there have been cases of students suing their university for their own failure, citing that they weren't helped sufficiently to achieve. Because of this, many Unis now bend over backwards to help their low-achievers.

Also, there is supposed to be a "bell curve" for the final grades, so that only a small percentage should get the extremes of grades.

I think it's a shame we/society place/s so much emphasis on one type of achievement. I blame the school system: we should encourage children to follow whatever their heart leads them to do and to do that to the very best of their abilities, be it law, sciences, art, woodwork, engineering, nursing, singing, dance etc etc. Then not so many children would feel the pressure to go to university and study academically for three years, more would enjoy their early adulthood, more would come out of education and training equipped for a job they enjoy and with skills to make it pay. Society too would value all its members more equally, there would be no eg. lawyers looking down their noses at non-professional vocations, etc etc (I say that because I used to be one of them; now I have retrained and understand what hard work combined with passion can really lead to).

Then a 1st, 2.1, 2.2 etc would be relative and relevant in their context and we wouldn't be trying to apply it across the board to all skills.

We know a lawyer who talks condescendingly about 'artisans'! I know where you are coming from.

I graduated last year from a Russell with a 2.1 in Linguistics and we were all scared into working for no less than a 2.1 implying that a 2.2/3rd today is useless. With about 100 applicants per graduate job, perhaps that's true. But still, surely having any degree is better than no degree.

From the responses it seems almost that the classification of the degree is now more important and carries more weight than the subject and where you actually studied?

So, a first in media studies from Anytown poly may carry more weight than a 2:2 in Engineering from Oxbridge?

I have visions of people sifting CVs and just looking at the degree classification in the first instance?

Also someone made the point that many don't know the difference between 'new' versus 'old' grades. I imagine this will only increase when A*s at A'level come into play (this year)?

An old O'level grade B is the equivalent of an A grade GCSE grade today, An old O'level grade C would now be a D and so on, how many really realise that? (Mind you GCSEs probably don't matter as much)?

Honestly I think it depends what you are applying for and what other experience you have. A first or second class Oxbridge degree is likely to count for more than anything else if you want a job somewhere where that kind of degree is relevant; I would think tho that if you want a job outside the City, and/or outside the 'professions', employers are likely to be more open minded and view your experience and dedication to the subject more than the class and place of your degree. Don't know what Russell Group means - is it the same as 'red brick'?

My husband has a 2.2 from Manchester uni and is a partner in a London law firm; by the time I got my law degree (five years later) a red brick uni 2.2 wouldn't get you anywhere near an interview.

Also I hear many stories of people putting 'typos' into their CVs - theory being once you've got to interview and you've charmed them, they won't care what degree you've got.

There is a lot of talk here about how things were different in the past, but I graduated from my first degree in 1995, from a RG university in a "proper" subject with a first class degree and after five months on the dole the only job I could get paid £8k a year. (Although I acknowledge we were luckier in having much lower student debt).

People who sift CVs now look for RELEVANT qualifications, so actually it doesn't necessarily matter for some roles where you did your degree, indeed many of the more traditional universities don't offer the degrees that employers want. For example an ex-student of mine has just graduated with a first in forensic science from a former poly. He worked his arse off to get it (he got BCCD at A level) and has already got a job in forensic science.

I did history as an undergraduate; I would never discourage anyone from doing history at university, but I would warn them that it is not a degree that will guarantee you a job whatever classification you get.

I have a 2:2 from a RG university, and was far from lazy. I also worked between 20-25 hours a week in a fairly demanding job.
I was on course for a 2:1, but had a disastrous final year with a real problem with the teaching on the two main courses of my degree.
lazy to generalise IMO.

'
So, a first in media studies from Anytown poly may carry more weight than a 2:2 in Engineering from Oxbridge?'

I find this very hard to believe.

'So, a first in media studies from Anytown poly may carry more weight than a 2:2 in Engineering from Oxbridge?'

Yes, if the person was wanting to work in the media...

'So, a first in media studies from Anytown poly may carry more weight than a 2:2 in Engineering from Oxbridge?'

Agree with clemetteattlee, it depends what you want to do with it. A first in media studies is as much use as a plastic frying pan if you want to be an engineer, likewise a degree in engineering isn't much use I'd guess for someone wanting to get into journalism or similar.

Personally I think degrees which lead to professional qualifications (think pharmacy, biomedical science, law, etc) are the most useful employment-wise. I'm not sure there is much call these days for people to be hired just because they are graduates. Also, in my field, masters degrees as pretty worthless as they are just seen as a means of covering up a poor degree class. Either you have a standard honours degree or for the next level up, you need a PhD.

'So, a first in media studies from Anytown poly may carry more weight than a 2:2 in Engineering from Oxbridge?'

Cortina, if you wanted a job as an engineer, you would need an engineering degree - so a media studies degree would be irrelevant whatever university it came from!

Oxbridge does carry clout with milk round type employers. (And, indeed, as an employer myself, I like to see lots of As at A-level)

I don't think my 2.2 caused me too much harm.

After someone mentions it at an interview I always answer the question as if it was about my social life...

It is still completely possible to become an accountant without going anywhere near a university. You can start as an accounting technician and work your way up. You might not get a job with a well known firm initially, but by the time you were fully qualified you would have more relevant experience than somebody with a degree, whatever class.

Also someone made the point that many don't know the difference between 'new' versus 'old' grades. I imagine this will only increase when A*s at A'level come into play (this year)?

An old O'level grade B is the equivalent of an A grade GCSE grade today, An old O'level grade C would now be a D and so on, how many really realise that? (Mind you GCSEs probably don't matter as much)?

Hte A* comes in this year for A level (but not for AS, the old AO level)

GCSEs aren't as important as A levels, bu they still matter - if you have less than AAAAAAAAAA wihtout mitigating cicumstances, possibly best not to apply to oxbridge (although this is all a matter of opinion) and Birmingham require 8 A at GCSE for medicine.

Persona;;y I'm was in the top 20% of a good private school last year with AAAAAAAAAAB, but I'm still rather dissapointed...

Nobody's ever asked me what I got but they have asked where I studied and they perk up their ears when they hear.

This thread is scary - speaking as the parent of three bright children.

where did you study NorthernLurker?

my husband got a 2:2 from Durham in law and is a partner in a law firm. HIs firm won't even interview traineeship candidates who are not on course for a first or a 2;1 now. They revoke offers of traineeships if students get a 2:2. So far as I am aware, in law, and most other professions, a 2:2 is now pretty much useless. Everyone requires a minimum of a 2:1 for a graduate training job or a place on a postgraduate course. For what its worth I got a first, also in law, whilst working at least 15 hours a week, and usually more like 25, so am unsympathetic to those who say they couldn't do well because they had a part time job to fit in.

roary Fri 09-Jul-10 09:54:09
"Cory Almost no one gets a third and i've never heard of someone failing."

Good heavens! They jolly well get Thirds in my subject if they deserve them. Or fail if they deserve that. But then we're not Oxbridge.

I have to say I really resent some of the comments on here.

I have worked damn hard and uni. Pregnant in second year 5 mo at the start of third year, about to start 4th year in September.

Im not lazy, im not thick and nor am I a really awful student. I probably will get a 2:2. Its nice to know what other people bloody think of that though.

This is exactly why I started the other tread in AIBU!

Waste of god damn time finishing it with attitudes like this going around.

Can I say that as I understand it, the only thing that is distinctive about the Russell Group of universities is that they all originally had a medical school. That is the basis on which the group was founded.

There are other excellent universities affiliated to different HE groups (of which there are about half a dozen) which are equally high status is terms of research, later employability and quality of teaching. Durham is the first one that springs to mind, as being an excellent university but not in the Russell Group.

So it's a bit pointless just saying to yourself 'It's Oxbridge or Russell Group for me' without doing further homework as to university status. Just becaue a university is old does not mean it is the best place to go to study a particular subject (for example, a Cambridge Modern and Medieval Languages degree is not the perfect fit for a future interpreter, for example). Employers know this.

girly lala, the majority of people on here aren't endorsing a situation where a 2:2 is worthless - they are just commenting on the reality of the situation. I don't agree in principal that a 2:2 should be worth so little, but agree with the others in stating that in the current job market, it pretty much is!

Ledodgy - isn't a 2:1 called Attila the Hun? So says my Scott's miscellany, anyway.

I had to show my certs at paperwork exchange when I started, inc A-Levels. I was 1.5% off a 1st, narrowly beaten by my best friend who was only 1% off. She never lets me forget that!

However my husband is a mechanical engineer, and back when he qualified 15 odd yrs ago a 2:1 was worth massively more than it is now, 2:2 was considered good. To the point that jobs in his field (aerospace) tend to have within their criteria '2:2 pre 19..' (can't remember what yr) or 2:1 post that year.