Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Three Quarters Of Employers 'require 2:1 Degree'

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10506798.stm

Intense competition for graduate jobs means that more than three quarters of employers require at least a 2:1 degree grade, a survey suggests.

The Association of Graduate Recruiters says there are more graduates chasing fewer jobs - with vacancies down by 7%.

Applications have soared, with an average of 69 people chasing each graduate job.

In response, 78% of employers are now filtering out applicants who have not achieved a 2:1 degree.

About two thirds of students achieve either a first class degree or a 2:1 - so this means the remaining third, who will still have passed their exams and paid their tuition fees, will not even be considered by these employers.

If your getting hundreds of applications the quickest way to get rid of a load it to filter them.

So 33% have just landed themselves with huge debt.

Great plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.1?

Under Brown many more people were getting 5 A levels at A grades and I am certain this standard has been maintained at Universiteh level. Aren't 90% getting firsts with a smattering of 2.1s and very very few below this new standard of excellence in British schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the most average university student could obtain a 2:1.

Education is often mocked on this board (qutie rightly imo) but if you have a student that obtained A's at GCSE and A level, and then went on to achieve a 1st at uni they're likely to be smarter than the average bear.

That's been my real world experience anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the most average university student could obtain a 2:1.

Education is often mocked on this board (qutie rightly imo) but if you have a student that obtained A's at GCSE and A level, and then went on to achieve a 1st at uni they're likely to be smarter than the average bear.

That's been my real world experience anyway.

trouble is, the average job doesnt need a degree...it needs someone who can do the job...if that takes a days training ( most jobs only need this to start it) and a few months to become proficient......well, what worth the degree.

course, Public Sector Love qualified people and use it to justify myriad courses, schemes, sebaticals and all the rest....a job??? thats for the plebs...give us self development, priority family time, team building and jollies to see what others are up to....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the most average university student could obtain a 2:1.

Education is often mocked on this board (qutie rightly imo) but if you have a student that obtained A's at GCSE and A level, and then went on to achieve a 1st at uni they're likely to be smarter than the average bear.

That's been my real world experience anyway.

When will the penny drop? I know employment prospects are dire out there for youngsters, but I fail to see how indebting yourself away from the dole queue for 3/4 years can still be considered a shrewd strategy.

Despite the apparent good intentions of socialist dic tatting in the education sector (and others), the eventual but blatant consequences of such engineering nearly always exposes the inherent flaws that riddles such narrow thinking from the off set.

So grammar schools were biased towards the middle classes? Whether this was true or not is another matter. However why did no one stop to ask why this is the case, instead of abolishing them all in spite of everyone?

A stripped down back to basics approach that rewards excellence instead of just supporting the mediocre is required within the entire education system. I wouldn’t want to be working for any establishment that’s been the subject of rampant and heavy expansion over the last few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.1?

Under Brown many more people were getting 5 A levels at A grades and I am certain this standard has been maintained at Universiteh level. Aren't 90% getting firsts with a smattering of 2.1s and very very few below this new standard of excellence in British schools.

When I graduated, out of a class of about 40 there were 2 first and four 2.1s. The rest got 2.2 or "ordinary" degrees.

Talk about dumbing down

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We get graduate applications, with other applications from people with experience (and not neccesarily years and years). The experienced ones get the jobs.

What drives me up the wall is that graduate applicants can't even fill in an application properly (you know, look at the person spec. and answer each one in turn why you have the skills), and I can probably guess from their degree they have written down they could do the role, but if somone puts the examples in, I will short list them, not the graduate who just expects the degree to do the talking.

Anyway, a days lesson in applying for jobs would do graduates the world of good. I want to give them a chance, but they do not give themselves a chance.

To be fair, these are not graduate jobs (not degrees as essential) but plenty of graduates apply to them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the most average university student could obtain a 2:1.

maybe in basket weaving or meedja, but not in a proper subject like maths, science, engineering, or dare I say it, economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 2:1 degree from a solid Uni was virtually useless to me in terms of getting interviews and that was 10 years ago.

Yes the same old thing repeats every few years.

If you finish uni in a good year you will have five job offers waiting for you..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe in basket weaving or meedja, but not in a proper subject like maths, science, engineering, or dare I say it, economics.

Or not. In numerate subjects it is possible to get a 100% corrrect answer which ups the overall average score. When I was lecturing, a number of students deliberately elected for the "numeracy" options rather than the "discursive" options in their final year for precisely this reason. Many is the flaming row I've had in exam boards about the de facto mark limit of about 75% operated by essay type subject markers.

At the other end, the most ridiculous system I came across was at Westminster Uni who would not give more than 75% for a perfect answer in (say) statistics or accounting, in order to level the playing field with the (say) law papers.

Personally I was happy to give full marks to any student who got down all the correct points it was reasonably physically possible to cover in the time allowed; but that got me into a lot of hot water with my colleagues.

While I don't hold any particular candle for Media studies degrees, I can see that getting a very high mark in them might actually be more difficult thwan in Accounting. There is also the aspect of "new" subjects feeling they have something to prove, whereas subjects like Classics and Philosophy have 1000 years of history to back up their credentials!

Edit: fat-fingered typos

Edited by cartimandua51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2.1?

Under Brown many more people were getting 5 A levels at A grades and I am certain this standard has been maintained at Universiteh level. Aren't 90% getting firsts with a smattering of 2.1s and very very few below this new standard of excellence in British schools.

This is the nub of the problem. 20 years ago universities (and polys) gave out degrees with a normal distribution curve so most people got a 2:2, a few failed and got 3rds, about 10-20% got a 2:1 and less than 10% got a first.

Now, in typical "all must have prizes" we seem to have 60% getting a 2:1, 25% a 1st and the remainder getting a 2:2 (assuming they are still breathing when graduation day arrives)! I've read talk about scrapping 3rd class degrees as no-one gets one any more!

Fecking Labour scum - infecting the exam boards and the education system for nigh on 40 years - they've destroyed the meritocracy that used to be education.

To me the whole aim was to sift the population by intelligence to see who's fit to be a doctor/surgeon/barrister etc. Goodness knows what the aim is now?

Edited by Warwick-Watcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or not. In numerate subjects it is possible to get a 100% corrrect answer which ups the overall average score. When I was lecturing, a number of students deliberately elected for the "numeracy" options rather than the "discursive" options in their final year for precisely this reason. Many is the flaming row I've had in exam boards about the de facto mark limit of about 75% operated by essay type subject markers.

At the other end, the most ridiculous system I came across was at Westminster Uni who would not give more than 75% for a perfect answer in (say) statistics or accounting, in order to level the playing field with the (say) law papers.

Personally I was happy to give full marks to any student who got down all the correct points it was reasonably physically possible to cover in the time allowed; but that got me into a lot of hot water with my colleagues.

While I don't hold any particular candle for Media studies degrees, I can see that getting a very high mark in them might actually be more difficult thwan in Accounting. There is also the aspect of "new" subjects feeling they have something to prove, whereas subjects like Classics and Philosophy have 1000 years of history to back up their credentials!

Edit: fat-fingered typos

as a drinking undergrad physical geographer I compared notes with gradings with a theoretical physicist friend of mine, both at Manchester Uni, late 90s. We concluded that in an essay/project/report, whatever, you got a 2.1 when you knew what you were on about and a 1st when you played a blinder.

anothert thing - I found graduate recruiters over the years SAY they want a 2.1 - to keep up appearanecs internally and externally - however if they like a candidate, for whatever reason, they'll happily take a 3rd. I have never seen a private sector employer ever actually check someone's degree certificate despite up-front saying they require a given grade. Far more important than degree grade and institution (tho it does help open doors) is performance at interview, strength of application, strength in interview tests etc.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a drinking undergrad physical geographer I compared notes with gradings with a theoretical physicist friend of mine, both at Manchester Uni, late 90s. We concluded that in an essay/project/report, whatever, you got a 2.1 when you knew what you were on about and a 1st when you played a blinder.

anothert thing - I found graduate recruiters over the years SAY they want a 2.1 - to keep up appearanecs internally and externally - however if they like a candidate, for whatever reason, they'll happily take a 3rd. I have never seen a private sector employer ever actually check someone's degree certificate despite up-front saying they require a given grade. Far more important than degree grade and institution (tho it does help open doors) is performance at interview, strength of application, strength in interview tests etc.

Yes - but a lot of the time the chumps they get to sift through the CV's will just launch anything that is not a 2:1 or above. They are told what to do by their bosses and do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - but a lot of the time the chumps they get to sift through the CV's will just launch anything that is not a 2:1 or above. They are told what to do by their bosses and do it.

yes and no - comes down also to making a CV stand out in a different way - highlightin extracurricular etc

but yep this can happen I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I graduated, out of a class of about 40 there were 2 first and four 2.1s. The rest got 2.2 or "ordinary" degrees.

Talk about dumbing down

tim

same here ....... back in the early 80's , quite a few Richards too ... mainly due to homebrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the nub of the problem. 20 years ago universities (and polys) gave out degrees with a normal distribution curve so most people got a 2:2, a few failed and got 3rds, about 10-20% got a 2:1 and less than 10% got a first.

Now, in typical "all must have prizes" we seem to have 60% getting a 2:1, 25% a 1st and the remainder getting a 2:2 (assuming they are still breathing when graduation day arrives)! I've read talk about scrapping 3rd class degrees as no-one gets one any more!

Fecking Labour scum - infecting the exam boards and the education system for nigh on 40 years - they've destroyed the meritocracy that used to be education.

To me the whole aim was to sift the population by intelligence to see who's fit to be a doctor/surgeon/barrister etc. Goodness knows what the aim is now?

Good post, my thoughts exactly.

If we have 2/3 people getting better than a 2:1, then surely a 2:1 is just an average degree now, not a good one as it wouls have been considered 10 years ago.

The 'answer' to this will no doubt to introduce a 1st* in the same way they have introduced A* for GCSE and A Levels when an A grade became an indicator of average attainment rather than anything above that. The problem is that so many people are now getting A* that they will need another classification above that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So grammar schools were biased towards the middle classes? Whether this was true or not is another matter. However why did no one stop to ask why this is the case, instead of abolishing them all in spite of everyone?

The tripartite system (Grammar, Secondary Technical, Secondary Modern) wasn't even fully implemented before being judged a failure. ISTM that the lack of Secondary Technical Schooling left a woeful gap in our education system. Certainly, at the Grammar School I attended there were bright but non-academic children who would have been better served if the third leg of the system had been created. It's actually astonishing that the UK designed a tripartite system and then only bothered to make two bits of it...

The decision to abolish, rather than complete, the system was IMO an act of class war as much as of educational good intentions -- as evidenced by the following quote by Anthony Crosland, Labour's Secretary of State for Education in 1965:

If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every last f**g grammar school in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, A top tier company will check all your credentials. It's easy now that there is a database that holds everyone University grades nowadays (well everyone from 2000 onwards I suppose). Or they will call the Uni etc..

Anyway, I had this discussion 5-6 yrs ago with my cousin about how labours obsession with getting more grads through the system was destroying the prospects of everyone but the richest people. Now the climate is so cut throat that if you didnt got to private school or an amazing state school in a good area your pretty much stuffed for life. We live in a "computer says no" society nowadays and it's going to be incredibly difficult for all these kids that are going to get "filtered". I really feel sorry for them, because they weren't to know how terrible the adults that control the system were treating them.

A more cynical person would say that these kids have all been set up to be indebted for life and paying extortionate interest fees for ever. It's as if labour wanted to rig the system to create debt slaves. It's like a strange science fiction film... :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 152 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.