Minimum 2:1 required
Discussion
ClaphamGT3 said:
davepoth said:
Viperzs said:
Even though the difference between a 2:2 and a 2:1 could be as little as 1%?
The difference between a pass and fail is only 1%. If they didn't differentiate, how would they know who the thickos are? (I got a 2:2)I got a 2.1 by the skin of my teeth and I wouldn't have even made the interview stage for the job I'm in now with a 2.2. It seems unfair, but as stated above, they have to draw a line somewhere as with everything.
Think about what a 2:2 says about you these days...
You know that graduate schemes want a 2:1. Your parents have spent a huge amount of effort getting you to the stage where you can actually do a degree. They pile money on you to fund your degree, and you yourself rack up huge debts too. You know it matters.
And you fail to achieve what is required.
Why would it be any different when a company is investing in you? You will have less motivation to achieving things as a salaried employee, and you couldn't even do it when it was your parents/your own money.
Would you even hire yourself when I put it frankly like that?
I know it sounds harsh, but given no more information than a graduate CV why would you bother when you've got stacks of people with 2:1s and firsts?
You know that graduate schemes want a 2:1. Your parents have spent a huge amount of effort getting you to the stage where you can actually do a degree. They pile money on you to fund your degree, and you yourself rack up huge debts too. You know it matters.
And you fail to achieve what is required.
Why would it be any different when a company is investing in you? You will have less motivation to achieving things as a salaried employee, and you couldn't even do it when it was your parents/your own money.
Would you even hire yourself when I put it frankly like that?
I know it sounds harsh, but given no more information than a graduate CV why would you bother when you've got stacks of people with 2:1s and firsts?
I did a reasonable degree at a respectable uni. The finals marks distribution every year was roughly:
1st: 20%
2.1: 75%
2.2: 5%
3rd/fail: 0 (these people tended to drop out pre-finals or defer a year)
For arts subjects, a distribution such as this is not untypical. A 2.2 in an arts degree these days signals to firms that you were in the bottom 5-10% of your year.
Now, for science subjects it's a whole different kettle of fish - the physics and chemistry courses at my uni each had about 35% of candidates getting a 2.2 or 3rd. (Conversely, they also had a much higher proportion of students getting a 1st). In this case then the 2.1 requirement might be counter-productive for firms.
1st: 20%
2.1: 75%
2.2: 5%
3rd/fail: 0 (these people tended to drop out pre-finals or defer a year)
For arts subjects, a distribution such as this is not untypical. A 2.2 in an arts degree these days signals to firms that you were in the bottom 5-10% of your year.
Now, for science subjects it's a whole different kettle of fish - the physics and chemistry courses at my uni each had about 35% of candidates getting a 2.2 or 3rd. (Conversely, they also had a much higher proportion of students getting a 1st). In this case then the 2.1 requirement might be counter-productive for firms.
koolchris99 said:
it's the sane with f
king UCAS points, alot of the grad schemes want 340 or 360 points which is AAB or AAA at alevel.. not sure why they give a stbwhat I did when I was 17 compared to 24 but as said it's just a way of getting rid of applicants.
Yeah this is my problem. I was an idiot at secondary school but got my self on to an access course and now have a 2.1 MA in management and finance from a Times top 150 uni. But I have still come across a situation where a grad scheme looking for a 2.2 or better at BA has knocked me back for not having enough UCAS points!king UCAS points, alot of the grad schemes want 340 or 360 points which is AAB or AAA at alevel.. not sure why they give a stbwhat I did when I was 17 compared to 24 but as said it's just a way of getting rid of applicants. My access course allowed me to start a degree that you needed 260 UCAS points to get on to and I far exceeded the marks required on the course to gain entry so I have probably the equivalent of 320 or so but there is no conversion factor and some recruiters just can't see past it.
ITs very simply just to cut down on CV's.
As Kermit said, any grad schemes will have thousands of people applying, why would they bother looking at you when there is someone better? You're all in the same boat, i.e. know nothing about anything the only thing that seperates you from the next person is your grade and your name.
THAT is why it is a fairly pointless excersise going if you come out with anything above a 2.1.
As Kermit said, any grad schemes will have thousands of people applying, why would they bother looking at you when there is someone better? You're all in the same boat, i.e. know nothing about anything the only thing that seperates you from the next person is your grade and your name.
THAT is why it is a fairly pointless excersise going if you come out with anything above a 2.1.
One way round it is to spend a year getting a post-grad qualification. I came out of Uni with a 2:2 (Maths), did a one year postgrad in Design, Manufacture and Management, travelled for a bit after that, did some agency work for Reebok UK and was accepted onto PwC's IT Graduate training scheme the following September.
I ignored the 2:1 or above criteria when applying for the PwC job (also had an Accenture interview) as I had further qualifications and experience. I guess PwC et al had a slightly more sophisticated filtering system than just looking at the grade of the first degree.
I ignored the 2:1 or above criteria when applying for the PwC job (also had an Accenture interview) as I had further qualifications and experience. I guess PwC et al had a slightly more sophisticated filtering system than just looking at the grade of the first degree.
xr287 said:
koolchris99 said:
it's the sane with fking UCAS points, alot of the grad schemes want 340 or 360 points which is AAB or AAA at alevel.. not sure why they give a stbwhat I did when I was 17 compared to 24 but as said it's just a way of getting rid of applicants.
Yeah this is my problem. I was an idiot at secondary school but got my self on to an access course and now have a 2.1 MA in management and finance from a Times top 150 uni. But I have still come across a situation where a grad scheme looking for a 2.2 or better at BA has knocked me back for not having enough UCAS points!king UCAS points, alot of the grad schemes want 340 or 360 points which is AAB or AAA at alevel.. not sure why they give a stbwhat I did when I was 17 compared to 24 but as said it's just a way of getting rid of applicants. My access course allowed me to start a degree that you needed 260 UCAS points to get on to and I far exceeded the marks required on the course to gain entry so I have probably the equivalent of 320 or so but there is no conversion factor and some recruiters just can't see past it.
t but nevermind. Now doing an PT MSc Finance but i can see if i apply to banks after this my alevels will still hold me back. koolchris99 said:
I wanted to do dentistry, no idea why now, and therefor did chemistry and biology where i should have chosen maths and physics. I got ABCD, did design engineering at uni, got a 2.1 but had zero chance of getting on a grad scheme due to my alevels. bit st but nevermind. Now doing an PT MSc Finance but i can see if i apply to banks after this my alevels will still hold me back.
Is it worth retaking whatever you got the D in to see if you can bump it up to an A or B?t but nevermind. Now doing an PT MSc Finance but i can see if i apply to banks after this my alevels will still hold me back. Like others have said...the 2.1 minimum is one way to filter the dozens of CV's that companies will recieve. I know when I did my work experience at a company 7 years ago, i done a few days in the HR department, my job was to discard any CV's that had bad grammar/spelling mistakes/didnt use a first class stamps ect....
It was a way of getting rid of 60% of the CV's that came through the door (there were hundreds!!)
It was a way of getting rid of 60% of the CV's that came through the door (there were hundreds!!)
I almost applied to PWC but they were asking for a minimum 2.1, I found out who the director was of their website and emailed him asking if the requirement for a 2.1 was fixed or not.
Someone from HR emailed me back requesting a CV, I didn't choose to follow it up at the time but it goes to show that they will probably recruit on the basis of the person sitting in front of them as opposed to those who got 69% vs 70%. You just need to get you CV through the door, sometimes agencies know the correct people and can circumnavigate the HR function in companies!
Someone from HR emailed me back requesting a CV, I didn't choose to follow it up at the time but it goes to show that they will probably recruit on the basis of the person sitting in front of them as opposed to those who got 69% vs 70%. You just need to get you CV through the door, sometimes agencies know the correct people and can circumnavigate the HR function in companies!
brickwall said:
I did a reasonable degree at a respectable uni. The finals marks distribution every year was roughly:
1st: 20%
2.1: 75%
2.2: 5%
3rd/fail: 0 (these people tended to drop out pre-finals or defer a year)
How times change. When I did my degree in 1991 the distribution was1st: 20%
2.1: 75%
2.2: 5%
3rd/fail: 0 (these people tended to drop out pre-finals or defer a year)
1st 2%
2.1 10%
2.2 80%
3rd 8%
You had to be very very good to get a 2.1 and exceptional to get a first (Well known proper Uni).
Mind you, when I am recruiting graduates I tend to look for candidates with a Masters as there are so many with a 2.1 or a first and I have discovered that many of them can not think straight, present a well reasoned argument or even spell!
I did what a few other posters have suggested and did a postgrad to make up for my lowly, disgraceful 2.2 
.
After my undergrad I applied for anything and everything and hoped for the best, and I didn't even get an interview.
Then after my postgrad I made a decision not to deal with HR bods and their box ticking approach. I only applied to smaller firms that I wanted to work for and I got a job at a great firm.
After a few years of experience I decided to move on and when it came to look for a job I got offers from the big firms that wouldn't have looked at me as a grad.
Get your foot on the door work hard and you'll be suprised how little people care whether you have a degree or not let alone what your degree classification was.
.After my undergrad I applied for anything and everything and hoped for the best, and I didn't even get an interview.
Then after my postgrad I made a decision not to deal with HR bods and their box ticking approach. I only applied to smaller firms that I wanted to work for and I got a job at a great firm.
After a few years of experience I decided to move on and when it came to look for a job I got offers from the big firms that wouldn't have looked at me as a grad.
Get your foot on the door work hard and you'll be suprised how little people care whether you have a degree or not let alone what your degree classification was.
blueg33 said:
brickwall said:
I did a reasonable degree at a respectable uni. The finals marks distribution every year was roughly:
1st: 20%
2.1: 75%
2.2: 5%
3rd/fail: 0 (these people tended to drop out pre-finals or defer a year)
How times change. When I did my degree in 1991 the distribution was1st: 20%
2.1: 75%
2.2: 5%
3rd/fail: 0 (these people tended to drop out pre-finals or defer a year)
1st 2%
2.1 10%
2.2 80%
3rd 8%
You had to be very very good to get a 2.1 and exceptional to get a first (Well known proper Uni).
Mind you, when I am recruiting graduates I tend to look for candidates with a Masters as there are so many with a 2.1 or a first and I have discovered that many of them can not think straight, present a well reasoned argument or even spell!
%'s aren't as bottom heavy as yours but it would probably follow a distribution something like: 2-5%, 30%, 55%, 10%
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff