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?

So the discussion seems to be given the glut of well-qualified students, whether we should encourage our children to go on to university or consider some sort of training?
I am assuming my son will go to university (preferably my university ), but should I be considering other options on his behalf? If so what, and how do I decide?
70 to each graduate role sounds horrendous, surely this will change in time, as the economy picks up. Any economists?

Sorry - didn't realise that was so long!!

Meant to add -

I too would be interested in knowing how the open university is respected/thought of by employers because I am thinking about upgrading my qualification.

Secondly - those in recruitment type positions would you consider or even read a covering letter explaining why my degree does not have an honours classification? On the one hand I have thought about including such a letter but then I think it might cross the line of too much information and make me seem like a drama queen!

Speaking for what happens in my university, I think the OU has a good reputation, and the higher level courses are state of the art (eg Masters level psychology conversion courses and so on). We certainly hire people with OU degrees for senior admin posts and so on. I know one Cambridge professor that did her PhD via the OU as well, so they must have some currency.

Oddly enough, if you have patchwork qualifications, higher education institutions are probably a good place to look for work, as they tend to understand more about people's back stories, having experience of what some students go through, and recognising the value of alternative qualifications.

In terms of trying to find a job worthy of you, building relationship with potential employers is probably more worthwhile than applying for jobs as they are advertised, I think. If people already have an awareness of you as a person and your capabilities, etc, then you are likely to be considered more seriously.

With regard to vocational qualifications, I think if someone is bright and has a skill such as carpentry, music or whatever, there are perfectly legitimate vocational routes that are of equal standing to degree courses - I am thinking of the furniture making course at Parnham, professional diplomas at music colleges and so on. These courses are also highly selective and well regarded, so could be considered by young people who feel three years in a library is not for them. I wish the Government would give student grants and loans for this sort of thing as well - it's a bit unfair everything is geared up to the full time university student IMO.

PS If you are thinking of sending your offsapring to Oxford or Cambridge, bear in mind that many students there feel very pressured and neurotic, and it takes a lot of emotional stamina to get through. There is support, but nevertheless it's tough, and sometimes I look at my blissfully happy undergraduates at the campus university I work at now, and wonder why Cambridge puts people through that when there are other ways to be an undergraduate. I am not sure it proves anything.

Interesting what you say Boffin Mum about applying for jobs within higher education establishments...the interview I described in my previous post was for a job in the university I graduated from!! Granted in a different department. I have applied for a number of posts there but that was the first interview.

I will make some enquiries about the open university situation - it would be ideal for me at this point in time. I could work around dad's needs and hopefully be in a position to look for a full time 'relevant' job by the time DS goes to high school.

The feedback I have had from other interviews has been much more positive - one board member called me at home after 9pm to explain just why they had selected the winning candidate over myself. She said I had interviewed extremely well and that she wanted me to know that - but the standard letter would not reflect the fact so she was calling personally.

Oh well - back to the drawing board!

"70 to each graduate role sounds horrendous"

I think this is the problem -Many, many jobs aren't 'graduate' roles at all because a university degree doesn't give you any relevant experience. Asking for a graduate is just snobbery. This has always been the case - graduates doing non-vocational degrees have always started their working life making the tea. Being a graduate may demonstrate that you have a certain amount of intelligence, but, in themselves, many degrees are life enhancing rather than money making.

People forget/don't realise that 40 years ago, engineers, midwives, physios didn't go to university, they started training on the job and did professional qualifications. It was really quite odd for anybody to go to university. As I have said before, it is still possible to do this in some professions. People have the idea that the only skilled career route that was ever open to people without a degree was being a plumber.

When I think of a very successful person, I don't think of a partner in a law firm, I think of the MD of a multinational company, and in my admittedly limited experience, I don't think the skills required to achieve that position have much to do with degree classification.

Merrymouse I agree that university is a 'life-enhancing' experience. I for one was never interested in the milk-round and becoming swallowed by a large conglomerate[sounds like something from Doctor Who ).
I feel attending university, whilst significantly related to one's employment prospects, is an end in itself. It is almost trivialising the process to place all emphasis on the degree obtained at the end.
Although there is significant debt involved, it is more than a career-related investment.
I would encourage my child to attend university for the experience, the thrill of learning at new level, from experts in the field, the social aspects, the life/career enhancing opportunities found in the societies and the independent, methodical work involved.
Plus, it beats going straight from school to work.

I am employed in one of the UK's highest paid careers and ironically you don't need a degree at all for it. I am extremely sceptical that educating the majority of the country to degree level is actually doing anyone any good. I do have a degree (a 2ii) in a subject completely unrelated to my current career, and thoroughly enjoyed my time at university. BUT I got a grant and 20 years ago a 2ii was still acceptable for a graduate career in some areas (but not all areas.)

I think the current education climate produces high expectations and disappointment.

"When I think of a very successful person, I don't think of a partner in a law firm, I think of the MD of a multinational company, and in my admittedly limited experience, I don't think the skills required to achieve that position have much to do with degree classification."

Well a partner in a law firm will often have a seven figure income, as would an MD in a FTSE100.

The point is, that to become either of those things, you need the entry-level qualifications. And both of those are likely to be a 2i or better (rather better in the case of the partner in the law firm)

My husband left Uni with a 3rd. The only one on his course to get a 3rd - but, he still attended uni, and passed all the same exams as everyone else.

In his case, the classification meant nothing as the course is very specialised and only a handful graduate each year. He has since risen very quickly over the years to become senior management in a specialised healthcare role but still with a hands on role in clinic. He really has the best of both worlds and this is something he keeps in mind when training students, and recruiting graduates.

As for his "poor" 3rd degree, it's never been mentioned once in his employment, and the skills he uses in business have come from the type of person he is, not they type of degree he gained. Like Merrymouse says above, to be MD of a large company takes more than a degree classification and I agree - so does my husband, he's got MD in his sights and I absolutely believe that this is what he will achieve.

But Splarkly, you are (a) talking about a highly specialised field and (b) presumably your DH graduated some years ago.

What is relevant is that tens of thousands of people are graduating this summer with degrees that are 2ii or worse and they aren't going to be able to get where they might've orginally wanted to go with that qualification

Agree with backinthebox.

I am now in a career which has nothing to do with my degree. Despite being highly qualified I started out answering the phone and making the tea in a marketing agency but it was my enthusiasm and tenaciousness that promoted me to account manager within eighteen months. Not my qualifications. My boss admitted this.

I am sometimes involved in recruiting new staff and I am as, if not more, interested in a confident, bright sounding applicant with enthusiasm and often experience since leaving education at A level than a university graduate with little experience (and often a high sense of entitlement!).

I think that unless you are exceptionally bright, or wanting to train in a field that necessitates a degree then university is not always the right place to go. Especially now it's so expensive! In the world of business, it is hard work, common sense, strength of character as well as the ability to get on with people that far out values a degree from a RG university.

I used to think that my children would certainly be pushed to go to university. Now I will be encouraging them to take a good, long look at whether that is the right thing for them - even suggest that they take some time out and get some experience in business before committing to a course that has little to do with their future.

I predict a rise in the number of people choosing the OU route to get a degree if/when they see it as a necessity.

Seeing univesity as a natural progression appears to be the wrong approach and people are just starting to realise that.

Posy, no I don't. We were taught to memorise and question spot. Today's A level history requires a much wider range of skills and much more skilful use of source material. Although they may be able to resit, they still have to have to required knowledge and ability to attain the higher grades. Resits are surely better than a system where a young person gets only one shot at getting to university.

I see how hard these kids work (bearing in mind they are now asked to do 5 AS levels and often four A2 - not including General Studies).

Today's 21 year olds have been tested every year in one form or another from the age of five. Many have worked their backsides off to get where they are and have had years of people sniping that they are not as good as we were.

We need to be more honest - we need to say that university is not simply about getting a job, indeed it may not even help; but that the fact that they have had the opportunity to stretch themselves academically, to meet new people, have new experiences and learn about themselves is worthwhile in itself.

Hmm.

Clemette, I don't doubt it's quite hard and stressful to do 5 A-Levels as opposed to 3, but is it helpful? I think the current system doesn't help bring out the best of strong students: they may be exhausted from studying for five subjects, but sadly, that doesn't necessarily mean they are good in their chosen subjects.

Why not try to stretch people academically before university?

clement my ds has just done 6A2 - he is a hard worker and clever

DP were astounded at how much less stressful the whole process was than when we did it

I got a measly BBD and dp got AAB in 1986 but we were both thin and ashen faced during the spate of two years crammed into two 3 hour paper exams

I think ds longest exam was 1 hour 15 but will ask dp as not certain

stress? I respect my ds a lot but there is no way anyone will convince me their education is as hard as ours was

Little Red Dragon
Do you mean that they should be encouraged to do three and those three be harder? i think that would be workable.
I am no defender of the current system, but I do know that some students manage to achieve 5 As in their A2 levels, which, as far as my own subject goes, are just as challenging as they were twenty years ago, and still they are told by the media that they aren't as good as "we" were.

Posy, stressful end of two-year exams do not equate to academic rigour. As I have repeatedly said the old exams tested different skills, namely the ability to memorise. Research repeatedly proves that rote learning does not result in enhanced understanding.
The argument that the exams are less stressful therefore they must be easier is pretty nonsensical.

What I wanted to get at was that words like 'hard' and 'challenging' are too vague. Yes, it may be 'challenging' to revise 5 subjects. It may be hard to rote-learn the syllabus of A-level maths. But these things are hard in a very different way from the older papers I've seen, which required students to memorize a lot less, but which required that tougher concepts be understood.

I don't think exams need to be 'harder' - they're clearly quite hard for lots of students. Sadly, I'm not sure that the hard work is so well directed towards useful learning. I think A-level maths is a good example here.

gcses simply involve reading AQA revision guides
rote learning to a tee

learning is learning
ds learned it for a module then dumped it
we had two at least hang onto stuff learned two years before

plus he pretty much KNEW what each short paper would hold

we had no idea in 1986

I'm not sure you are actually reading my posts Posy. The GCSE history syllabus has not changed in twenty-five years (well, the Modern World Study on Northern Ireland has been replaced by one on 9/11). There aren't any revision guides for the syllabus I teach.

Ho hum, it is beside the point. If you truly believe that your son had it easier than you then nothing I will say will convince you. But I feel confident that with twelve years experience and close to 500 students taught to GCSE and A level I do have some insight.

I keep meaning to say that you can get onto Graduate Entry Medicine at Nottingham with a 2:2.

i am reading them but sense you do not want to hear what I am saying

The night DS got his GCSE results experts and academics on newsnight said we could downgrade the GCSE grades by two grades to equate to twenty five years ago

my daughters history GCSE syllabus is new this year