Degree grade matters more than university reputation

[thing47]

Did anyone see the report out today from The Institute of Fiscal Studies regarding the importance of getting a good degree versus which university you attended? It makes an interesting adjunct to the ongoing discussions around the importance of attending Oxbridge or an RG university.

The headline news is that getting a First or a 2.1 from a lesser known university is better financially than getting a 2.2 from a 'top' university. Degree grade is the most important thing. The authors of the report suggest this means that we shouldn't be too hung up on which university our DCs attend.

Of course the devil is in the detail (isn't it always), so in some subjects degree grade makes very little difference whereas in others it makes a huge difference. It also won't surprise any of us to learn that women who get a First don't earn substantially more than those who get a 2.1, but men who get a First do. This is partially (but not totally) explained by career choice and the fact that most of us stop, at least temporarily, to have children.

Is there a public/private sector split in recruitment practice?

Oh I'm sure some employers do look at A levels @TizerorFizz, my question is why? Why do they think it's a useful filter? I suspect in some (many?) cases it's just out of habit rather than being evidence-based in any meaningful manner.

I agree with your second paragraph – all these forms of assessing a candidate's suitability, not just for the job but for the company, are much more useful than exams sat 3 or 4 years earlier and which we all know can be massively affected by the circumstances in which they were taken.

My argument would be that A level grades are a very poor, rather lazy and generally largely irrelevant way to shortlist job applicants who have degrees. No one on these boards has yet provided any evidence or data that would cause me to re-assess that opinion.

If you want someone who consistently works hard and always does well then high GCSE grades, A levels, university exams in each of years 1 - 3 and post grad exams is a pretty good set of data to obtain. Of course someone who never did much of a hard day's work in their life with CCC might be great at the job but more likely than not they won't be. This is all pretty self evident to most people doing recruitment.

These things tend to reflect the job market. We have moved from a shortage of workers (for the first time in my entire adult life) which has not lasted very long at all to in my own sector not that many jobs again (ie back to normal) so I would imagine how hard it is to get a job will go back to being very hard yet again.

Employers in the private sector need people who will help them make profits in businesses so if those hired do not achieve that they won't last whether they are Tim nice but Dim and veyr posh who lasts 2 minutes or [insert contextual candidate name] who ticks all the disadvantaged boxes but also is not very good who also won't last. However if you have good Tims and good contextual people then they will thrive.

@thing47 For the same reason universities look at them. To filter out applicants if they have lots of similar qualified applicants. I know students can improve but that’s assuming the degree means everything. And you trust it. Employers might not. It’s all information to help with shortlisting. That’s all. It’s hopefully one of several things that are used. Work experience might be another. A specific skill might be another one. Or post grad qualification. They all build up a picture. A levels would never be used as a sole criteria.

You might then also ask why would degree classification matter? That’s used for shortlisting too! Why does that trump everything? Should it? The more info going into the recruitment process, the better. Recruitment is expensive. Getting it wrong is even more expensive. That’s why employers have filters. Also time costs money. If employers were not getting the right people, they would change criteria. After all, they simply want the best people for the jobs. With as few mistakes (round pegs in square holes) as possible.

I wasn’t asked for my GCSE or A level results when applying for post grad roles. My A level subjects had no relevance to my degree or the roles I applied for.

Neither do we ask for them where I work now.

Oh god. I mean most people can do most jobs.

I've routinely interviewed graduates in the last 3 companies I've worked at over the last 20 years - all top, well known global corporates in the Professional Services (X2) and the Payments sector.

Typical criteria used to shortlist is Degree classification, evidence of Leadership/Accountability/Teamwork (directed questions on application form) and Work experience, amongst others.

I've never seen A' Level results used. My own opinion is that there can be a big leap in maturity - especially so in boys - between the ages of 18 and 21 - and therefore school exam results aren't necessarily a fair reflection of either an employment candidate's aptitude or attitude.

If you want someone who consistently works hard and always does well then high GCSE grades, A levels, university exams in each of years 1 - 3 and post grad exams is a pretty good set of data to obtain. Of course someone who never did much of a hard day's work in their life with CCC might be great at the job but more likely than not they won't be. This is all pretty self evident to most people doing recruitment.

You seem to be equating "working hard" with doing well academically. A lot of bright students don't necessarily work that hard to get good GCSE and A Level results. I'd be personally just (or more) as impressed with someone with less than stellar GCSEs and A Levels who then picked up their game and did well at university. I'd also be more impressed by someone who actually had work experience as opposed to simply getting good grades.

DD is an example of this. Academically lazy. Was more interesting in boys and partying throughout school and Uni. Lucky for her she got all A’s in GCSE and A levels and a first in her degree. Thankfully when it came to applying for her first graduate job and summer internship, she impressed and got excellent feedback. Just took her longer to get her mind in the right place!

Beauty is in the of the beholder! Different people will have different opinions, there is no universal answer

Huh? I'm glad she did well but with all As at gcse and A levels she isn't an example of this.

THis doesn't surprise me as the world of work is getting more global. Dh works for a north american firm and they don't really know the difference between UK unis bar Oxbridge - they have no idea whether Manchester Met is better than Manchester Uni etc. Probably don't know that Oxford Brookes isn't Oxford. Can cause problems.

For the same reason universities look at them

Except that, as already stated on numerous occasions, universities only look at A levels when you are applying for a first degree. They do not look at, or even ask for them, when applying for higher degrees – this is because universities only consider them relevant when they are the last qualifications available. Once you have a first degree, universities don't give a stuff about your prior academic qualifications.

To answer your other question, it trumps previous qualifications because self-evidently it is a better guide to someone's current ability than exams taken 3 (or 4) years earlier. And which may have been affected to a greater or lesser extent, by all sorts of extraneous factors which to a certain degree (!) are levelled out during the years at university.