Better Uni or better degree classification

[stubiff]

If you were a graduate employer what would you prefer (all other things being equal):

3rd from Cambridge or 2:2 from East Anglia or 2:1 from Reading or 1st from Bradford?

Have picked the above at random, this is not a real life problem. There are roughly 20 places between each university on the CUG league table.

Or this one:
2:2 from Cambridge or 2:1 from East Anglia or 1st from Reading?

Let's assume the degree is in an area of relevance, e.g. IT employer and a Computer Science graduate.

Thank you for all the replies so far.
To (very crudely) summarise (the degree status part only):

Generally, more weighting on the degree class (especially for vocational courses).
Possibly more weighting on the Uni for non-vocational courses.
Subject ranking can also play a part.
Ideal candidate - 1st from top-third Uni in a relevant subject.
High end professions and/or large companies will require 1st (or poss 2:1) from top-half or top-third Uni.
2:1 in relevant subject may be better than 1st in non-relevant subject, for certain professions.
1st from bottom-quarter Uni will not be good enough for some companies.
3rd - either, on benefits for the rest of your life or snapped up (if right Uni/subject)! (This one has the most variance)
A-levels need to back up the degree, or mitigate a lower degree class.

PS. Am not saying that any of the above is a set of rules. Each profession and company will obviously have their own requirements.

A 1st is always good enough if it comes from a relavant course in a UK university. I have never seen any investment bank immediately reject a business / economics / maths student with a 1st outright - usually happens after at least a telephone interview.

Also, accounting is not considered a numerical course. So if anyone hopes to get onto a top IB grad scheme studying business or economics is better.

The reason I asked the original question was because a student can get a 1st from any Uni, and certain Unis have a higher proportion of 'good honours' than others (the 'worst' Unis have 60% good honours (2:1 or 1st)).
However, there always seems to be a push for students to go to the 'best' Uni they can, which may mean they just scrape in.
I was wondering if it would be beneficial to choose the Uni (all other things being equal) to maximise your chance of getting a 1st or 2:1, within reason. This sounds like it may be more of an option for vocational subjects.

Take the example (chose these at random) - entry requirement Lancaster (CompSci) is AAB, entry requirement Cardiff is BBB. Student is predicted ABB.
Better to be a (possibly) brighter one at Cardiff than just scrape into Lancaster?

Lancaster is 21st on CompSci subject list (7th overall), Cardiff is 28th (26th overall), so not much between them in the scheme of things.
A 2:1 from Cardiff or a 2:2 from Lancaster?!

You assume there is a direct correlation between entry grade and subsequent degree classification. In fact the evidence shows that the correlation is weak, at best.

YY, what titchy said, and it's also worth looking at the support the university offers. Cambridge, as I said upthread, invests an awful lot into bumping students up from 2:1 to first (which I actually think is a bit crappy, but there we go), and an awful lot into making sure students don't get thirds. They have a lot of resources on it. I would guess there are quite big differences in the type and degree of support different places are able to provide.

A lot of companies now no longer consider A Level grades, or waive their UCAS point requiremente, if a grad has a first. All of the Big 4, nearly all of the investment banks, and even most of the non-investment banks do this but may not communicate it effectively. I have just today requested to interview a grad who got a 1st from Open University over another from Leeds, as the former seems a better fit in terms of course and experience despite having no A Levels.

So in a nutshell, your degree classification is really important. It’s dangerous to think a 1st from Birkbeck is somehow ‘less’ than a 2:1 from LSE because it’s not - the 1st class student will always be preferred in the initial shortlisting and then scored in relation to their 1st class peers. If we get rejections after the interview (on either side) that’s when we consider interviewing the 2:1 grads.

The Open University is actually the hardest university to win a 1st in terms of marks. Most courses require at least 85% but some above 90%. When you consider the type of full time working students it attracts you can see why relevant experience + open university degree is often the most attractive option for employers. In Investment Banks these guys don’t even need a grad scheme we recruit them directly into the ‘end role’.

@titchy
Grateful if you could point me at that evidence please, as that is interesting.
Thanks.

... as this suggests otherwise
www.officeforstudents.org.uk/data-and-analysis/differences-in-student-outcomes/degree-outcomes-overview/

Also although the purer more modern trying not to be biased recruiters may in some cases not be lookingat A level grades even or status of institution and do final interviews without know if you went to Cambridge or Middlesex ex poly, that is not the case with allthose recruiting further down the line where more "old fashioned" ideas that someone who went to a good university and has high A levels and might be a good fit with the clients might still matter and of course in some lesser institutiones if firsts are handed out like smarties (and I am not saying they all do that of course) and everyone knows that then you still might find it hard to get to a final interview or get the job.
I think you take a huge risk by dumbing down to try tactically to get in through a lesser institution with higher chance of a first. You probably also are educated amongst people who are less bright so the cut and thrust o debate and the like may not be such a great experience, many many more people dorp out of the lesser places and the demographic of students may not be useful for future contacts too.

It’s worth remembering that most grad schemes are happy with 2:1 or 1st. Few narrow down options to just a 1st and some definitely do filter out some universities. You need to look at the Institute of Fiscal Studies to se that RG university matters and subject studied matters. Of course there are specialist niche courses but overall reasearch is clear and it doesn’t agree with some of the posts here.

@Xenia,
I'm not talking about dumbing down by going to an ex poly when a student is capable of ABB. I wouldn't advise that.
The example given was only an ABB to BBB (std entry) difference, the Unis being 'similar' ish.

Sorry, AAB to BBB difference.

I think of course a 1st/2:1 will of course always be better than a 3rd regardless of institution, however I think it also needs to be taken into account that higher ranked uni's mark much more harshly than lower uni's. For example, what would be a 1st class essay in an ex poly would likely be a 2:1 in a higher ranked uni. This is what I found when transitioning from an ex poly to a top 5 uni anyway!

And I think many top class employers know that Matilda. Even when grads are employed without the employer knowing the university, the top university grads still come out with the jobs in greater numbers. The IOFS report certainly leads us to believe degree and university count.

Why do these discussions always focus on law/investment banking?
Most students don't want to do either, or aren't interested in living in London.

^Why do these discussions always focus on law/investment banking?
Most students don't want to do either, or aren't interested in living in London.^

And OP asked specifically about Computer Science?

I used to do graduate recruitment for a well known blue chip. Grads would not get an interview with less than a 2.1 and had to have a relevant degree (technical in my case). Where they studied wouldn't enter into it.

Am I right in thinking that where you went to university is more important for students taking humanities degrees than if students were taking science or vocational degrees?

If IT, surely course and course content and the fit with whatever the role requires comes into it. And also a student's interest in things IT outside their degree.

I am also assuming that, like other quantitative subjects, degree classes are dependent on whether a student successfully makes a step up from school to University or hits a ceiling. Or whether they have sufficient passion for the subject that they happily immerse themselves 5-7 days a week. Or whether they are just lack the organisational skills required for successful study/employment.

And then what the role requires. I remember years ago, a friend reading for a MMaths, got hired for a technical marketing/sales job with a very prestigious firm rather than the technical job she had applied for. The explanation was that recruiting someone with both the technical and interpersonal skills required for the first role was harder than recruiting someone with just the technical skills. So a Cambridge person who slides into a degree in computing because though bright, don't have the interest/dedication to continue with maths (a common route) and who then spends much of their time involved in Footlights, might be much better for a number of roles (banking, law etc) than the person with a first who has not ventured much outside a narrow computing world.

A few comments/clarifications:

I think there is only one poster talking about banking and one talking about law. A poster can only talk about their own experiences/industry/profession. There may be more 'large company' examples because they employ a lot of people.

I gave an example of IT, but it was only an example, meaning it could be any degree course of relevance to the profession/employer.

The options were examples, not real life (for me). However, the Cardiff v Lancaster one could certainly be a real life (pre-Uni) choice for someone.

Yes but you left out course, course, course. I can think of several examples where students with good and relevant vocational degrees, sometimes at Universities sneered at on MN, have fared much better when looking for jobs. Even when compared with Oxbridge grads with humanities degrees.

A first tells employers something about an applicants ability to focus on a task. But many employers are recruiting skills and experience.

@Needmoresleep
Are you talking about course content or a subject which is relevant to the profession?
Thanks.

My better half’s employer (pharma) only ask for 2:1 in a science or numerical field.

That said the other things they look for in terms of experience in the field would be very hard to get from a low end institution that wasn’t pulling the research funding beyond lab work, so whilst the degree may be equally scored the other opportunities had along the way would heavily disadvantage someone applying from a crap uni.

I should add to be fair that my better half managed to get the experience required to get in off their own bat, though that was very much due to personal contacts amassed over my early career.