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?

Are we really holding up Carol Vorderman as somebody to aspire to, bearing mind she has been endorsing liar loans that would cripple people for decades, clearly that was all she was capable of as a result of her third

very soon you'll need a 2:2 to sign on!

2:2 wont help you in the job market nowadays - you really need a 2:1 or higher to get into a job in the city. If you have a 2:2 you'll end up in the paralegal/back office function set which is so difficult to break out of.

Back when I graduated 14 years ago a mate of mine got a 2:2 - he ended up becoming a criminal barrister but had to work bloody hard (and harder than all other friends who went to the bar) to make it. Nowadays he just wouldnt be able to.

I know several people with 2:2's who now have doctorates. I know fewer people with 1sts with doctorates.

I have two firsts. I graduated first in my class (English) in my first degree at a good university. I graduated with a first in my second degree at a poly (Speech and Language Therapy).

The second degree got me my job, which it would have done if it were a 2:2 also. I think my first degree taught me how to think broadly and critically.. I think I use these skills in my job and have enhanced my ability to perform at a level I am satisfied with. However, in terms of pay and progression, it has been unwholly necessary.

The race is long and in the end, it's only with yourself.

I didn't get a 2:1, I didn't even get a 2:2. I turned into a crazy, stressed fruit loop at finals time and totally fcuked up. Admittedly, I did go onto do a masters but when it came to applying to jobs, I didn't even consider applying for one that required a 6 page graduate application form since I know that a computer scanner would have chucked it in the bin before a person even read it.

I applied for 6 jobs that required a cover letter and CV only. Got 5 interviews and offered 3 jobs. All from multinational companies and no-one once asked what degree classification I got. I was either lucky or dazzled them at the interview. One of which was Intel and at the "any other questions" bit, I actually asked if they played that really annoying intel tune all the time and whether or not people really did dress up in shiny space suits and dance around the office (it was an intel advert at the time). Can't believe I asked such ridiculous questions but they still phoned up 3 times to ask me what they could do to make me take the job!

I just think it's sad that these days it's considered the natural progression to go to university. There are jobs that don't need degrees and instead need vocational training so not everyone that goes to uni really should be there. In order to get more people to university they've created more courses and lowered entrance qualifications resulting in degrees having less kudos and worth and tution fees being necessary in order to support all these people at university. There's no way that I could have afforded to go to university these days. It's become a case of the wealthy can study and not the capable.

I'm a uni lecturer in English and what I can say is that, at least in my subject (and in cognate disciplines such as history) the 2.1 has massively expanded so that it includes almost all students. The difference between a student getting 62 and a student getting 68 is far greater than between 56 and 62 or 68 and 74.

A 1st is still a genuine mark of excellence and hard work, but a 2.1 can include almost all students from weak and/or lazy to high-flying or ultra-conscientious. A 2.2 would tend to indicate that a student had either had encountered a lot of problems during the course (mostly of an extra-curricular kind), that he or she had done very little work often for reasons beyond his/her control, or that they had simply chosen the subject a little naively. That happens in English because teenagers choosing courses often realise that in humanities subjects will need to do a lot of independent research, grasp difficult concepts of a variety of kinds, read long, boring and difficult texts, conduct some pretty rigorous analysis, and so on. None of this means, however, that a 2.2 is any mark of shame - all these reasons are perfectly valid for getting a 2.2 in my book, and people go on to have excellent and fulfilling careers afterwards. A lot develop skills and interests that stay with them for life, regardless of the career path they subsequently choose. And you're not bound to who you were between 18 and 21 (if that's when you studied). In these times I think people should do degrees not only to enhance their employment prospects but because they've decided that education is generally a good thing and will benefit them in all sorts of other, less tangible ways, too.

I got a third in maths from a redbrick university. Sounds stupid and childish now, but my boyfriend of the time dumped me a week before the finals and I went to pieces. I was probably on for a 2:2 before that. Although after his exams were finished he did say it was all a mistake. What a fool I was.

I decided I wanted to be an accountant and was told basically no chance. I went on to beat 500 people to my job and was featured in a magazine having passed all my exams in record time

Ex went on to be a surveyor

Good for you belly

And on your ex

Whoops - looking back on my post I see I put 'had' twice in a sentence so that it doesn't make sense, and said that students 'realise' something when I meant they don't realise it.

That shows you what an English degree does for you!

One thing that employers should be asking about their 2:1 candidates is 'exit velocity', i.e. was the quality of the student's work rapidly getting better and better towards the end of the course, or were they effectively coasting along having been well taught at school, and got the 2:1 by being comparatively tidy and inoffensive? The former indicates an interesting degree of intellectual maturation happening comparatively late on, and can sometimes say something about a student's ability to stick at something hard until they've cracked it.

Another question is whether they were able to take any risks on the course, and whether this had an effect on their marks. It is easy to get a 2:1 if you pick easy subjects and never try anything out of your comfort zone. I would much rather interview a student who deliberately took a couple of courses in something really challenging regardless of whether this might compromise their degree result, because then you have some indication about their true inclination to work and learn.

Finally it's worth finding out whether they have become involved in any research projects during the course, and how these went. Research is a time-consuming, humble, messy business that really starts to sort the sheep from the goats, and which is the closest thing to real 'work' they probably do on their courses (other than placements). A carefully executed project with a well written final report indicates a student who can hit the ground running in a graduate level job, without needing constant supervision, I reckon.

I went out with a guy for ages who told everyone, including me, he'd been to Oxford. It was a big deal at his work where there was a lot of Oxbridge snobbery

After two years together I found out via a mutual friend he'd actually been at Oxford Poly (as was)

Afaik he is still a high flier and no one who needs to know has ever discovered his lie. I was so he lied to me as well though - he told me the college and all sorts of details about his life there, as if I gave a monkey's.

2:2 - drinker's degree, that's what it was called at my uni anyway

I've got a third class honours and I'm proud of it

I do plan to do another degree, starting from foundation level once I've finished having children though. I wouldn't attempt to try and get a graduate place with my degree at the moment, there are plenty of people out there who worked a lot harder than me for their degrees who deserve the job more.

When I have my First it will be an entirely different kettle of fish though!

Back in the 1980s I worked with someone who said she'd been to Cambridge. She had taken a teacher training course at a college (long since gone) in Essex whose courses were validated by Cambridge University.

I am offended by the idea of a 2;2 being a drinkers degree. I have a 2:2 and an MSc in chemistry from Bristol university.

I worked very hard during my degree course 20+ years ago and missed getting a 2:1 by one mark.
think this was because of exam stress and getting carried away with my research project.

What concerns me is that there are no checks across different universities that the standard required for a 2:1 is the same or how to compare different subjects.

I got a job as a teacher which is graduate level.

In my day students who got firsts were considered as swots who had no social lives. Social skills can be just as important as class of degree.

The main difficulty is however the shortage of graduate jobs generally and expansion of universities should be kept on hold until the situation improves.

No offence intended crazymum but 2:2 was commonly referred to as "drinker's degree" in my uni. Still is I suppose.

crazymum, there are checks and we spend a lot of time benchmarking.

But my ex didn't get caught out boffinmum, he had and still has a very, very good job indeed

I don't know how the Open is regarded, but I hope it's relatively well! In theory it would be as it demonstrates commitment, self-motivation and is often done while students are working in other jobs...

BoffinMum are all unis benchmarked together though or just RG unis with other RG unis? Wasn't there some scandal about the University of Luton being completely rubbish, for example?

Can't remember who said it but totally agree with parents who think that farriery/plumbing/etc may be better career paths than a white-collar one-size-fits-all graduate exec role.

Our farrier has THE BIGGEST HOUSE I'VE EVER SEEN! With a pool! Now he's in his late forties he sits and drinks tea while his apprentices scurry about doing everything around him.

My dad is an engineer and says that qualified brickies are like hen's teeth at the moment, too.

A fair few of my friends had hiccps at uni and consequently grades which did not represent their (to me) actual talent. However - they ALL speak at least one other language and it hasn't held them back - they're all off living it up in various beautiful European cities in fab jobs while I slog it out in the London jungle - underpaid and paying waaaay too much rent.

I really don't think it makes a difference - what % of graduates get accepted to milk round jobs anyway? I have a 2:1 and Masters, but my friends with 2:2s have done just as well/better ten years on. The key is that you take whatever job you can get, and then work bloddy hard at it even if you hate it. Eventually you'll be able to move on up.

A 2:2 has always been a poor result!
I got a 2:2 and knew it was shit so worked like a trojan and got Masters degree.
Most degrees won't get you a job unless in something vocational - a degree is not enough and hasn't been for many years.

Graduate schemes straight from uni have never been the only way into a decent graduate job.

I got a 2:1, Dh a 2:2, both in the very early '90s (when there was a bit of a recession going on, big companies not recruiting, I went to a milkround at a RG Uni with just half a dozen firms represented!) We both worked for several years in whatever we could get - cleaning, pubs, admin, and self funded higher degrees. Now both working at senior management level in the public sector.

There's always been an element of just keeping on trying.