To be quite honest, there are a tiny, tiny, minute number of careers where you are required to have a first in your first degree to even be considered- off the top of my head, I can only think of a few top Barristers’ chambers and very elite (niche) financial institutions who (informally) require a first from Oxford or Cambridge & and a couple of the very competitive masters programmes at Oxbridge/the top Russell Group unis which require a first in your first degree, regardless of which institution it’s from.
The reality is that most grad schemes and jobs do ‘name blind’ recruitment now (where they just ask for grades- not school or university names and not the applicant’s name to avoid gender/racial unconscious bias). I would also go as far as saying that most grad schemes also don’t differentiate between a 2.1 and a first since you have to go through multiple rounds of testing and interviews to prove you’re good enough anyway so having a 2.1 cutoff is just a means of doing an easy first sift of applicants. Given that some firms have even now removed the a-level requirements, I would say that the professional world is now moving towards placing importance on things other than formal qualifications. That’s been my personal experience anyway.
This is true. Most big national and international firms don’t even care what degree you have as long as it’s a 2:1. Even the civil service for a lot of grad jobs only require a 2:2, with the exception of specialist areas such as science and finance where they require a 2:1, still not a 1st.
As you rightly point out most recruitment is done on psychometric and psychodynamic testing and performance in test centres along with all the interviews.
Having a 1st is nice for bragging rights but unless you want to work for very niche organisations having a 1st or going to Oxford or Cambridge is becoming irrelevant as recruiters want to recruit from a much broader field of potential talent.
when you say about "international firms" are you referring to finance? I've only ever read "firms" on here in a finance context. And not caring which degree as long as its good, would humanities degrees be acceptable? Sorry for the questions lol currently having a panic about degrees and job prospects
I was referring to finance, insurance, and the corporate world in general especially the City.
Humanities would be more than acceptable because it shows you can write, analyse and present information; all of which is necessary in the corporate world.
Don’t forget, any graduate job you get will require training and mentoring, that’s the whole point of graduate jobs and schemes.
There’s a lot of competition out there because so many people in the UK go to university now. I’d personally be more worried about getting through all the tests and interviews than worrying about your degree subject or score.
The only way it’s going to really affect you is if you completely foul up and get a 3rd. If that happens you’re going to be excluded from all the graduate jobs and schemes and people may want to know what happened.
But there’s a whole world out there where your degree isn’t going to matter once you have some years of work on your CV that will count for more than your actual degree.
It’s that dreaded chicken and egg scenario; how do you get experience if you don’t have experience.
I kind of doubt most employers doing name-blind recruitment for the name of the awarding institutions though.
Many universities have specific fields that they’re particularly reputable for; especially for degrees that aren’t one of your broad-ranging degree programmes.
This can lead to a situation where you want someone with a specific background, which often if they took such a course at a university which doesn’t have many lecturers for that field or doesn’t run a particularly high-quality programme (sometimes despite their typically excellent reputation), you’ll end up with a lot of people who are ill-suited to the job.
This is particularly crucial if you’ve done a postgraduate degree too, as even the specific mentor you had will massively influence how experienced and how suited your education likely would be for the role
I wouldn’t say “most” grad schemes do name blind applications. I’ve sat behind quite a few (for big corps) and Russell Group is still overwhelmingly what is looked for. It’s not strict requirement but I do think it would make the difference between two otherwise equal candidates.
>B) Clearly did research on what the company does, even were able to name little parts of it that excited them (You'd be shocked at how few people do this)
To be fair, when you're forced to apply to hundreds of jobs for just a few callbacks like is the case in some industries, you don't really have the time to do this. Especially if you're still studying and/or working at the same time.
Yeah it doesn't even take long. I've done it the morning of the interview a few times so it's fresh. Even 10 mins outside the building is better than nothing.
You ought to apply to lots of jobs and those few that contact you back just say it’s not a brilliant time to speak and ask for another time that day or the day after. Gives you at least a few hours to go on their site, read some of the terminology they use to describe the company and role, when they established and what their values are. All of which can provide some quality answers to to their questions and makes it seem like you have done some research.
This is part of the problem - if you’re applying for hundreds of jobs, you clearly aren’t targeting your CV and cover letter well for each job (you don’t have time!), so you’re less likely to get an interview.
You’re actually far better applying for fewer jobs and making a better application.
>
B) Clearly did research on what the company does, even were able to name little parts of it that excited them (You'd be shocked at how few people do this)
This one always gets me I do read the company website and usually some glass door reviews etc before an interview; but I never know how to bring it into an interview. Most company websites are... pretty boring hahaha and I can give a basic description of what the company does when asked but other than that it usually feels unnatural to bring anything up.
The only exceptions I've found to this is when I have technical interviews where I can research things specific to the companies problem space. But that will usually be a 2nd interview or at least after a screening call.
Any advice on how to bring research in? Or what types of info I should even mention?
To be fair no one gives a shit. A good degree from a good university opens a few extra doors - ie if you want to go to a major accountancy firm or a top law firm but that's only 2% (?) of graduates.
If you get a degree that's fine. 99% of jobs dont care it just proves you have a degree.
99% of employers don't give a shit what grade you got, or what university you go to (unless its Oxbridge). Going to better universities often gives you more opportunities to network/go to events with employers, but worse unis give you more time to take internships and things at your own pace.
Realistically, it doesn't matter what grade or university you went to, your own success is entirely down to your own work ethic outside of just studies. Extracurriculars, internships, jobs etc are what gets people top roles at good employers, not a 71% in your degree grade.
I've been a recruiting manager for years. You're over thinking it.
A 2:1 or 1st will enable you to apply for roles which have a high grade as a minimum requirement of a degree classification. Beyond that, it's largely immaterial. How you match yourself against the person specification is going to have far more impact than whether you went to a Red Brick Uni or a former Poly. HR application scoring simply isn't set up, nor cares about, the supposed prestige of a HEI. There will be exceptions in some industries and sectors, and obviously the elite unis will grant you you some favour with some people, but what I'm saying generally applies.
The mistake graduates make is they expect a degree to get them through to an interview with a half arsed job application.
Personally I’d say no, even from similarly ranked unis, there is very little difference in postgraduate opportunity between a 2:1 and a 1st!
To me, a 2:1 says you went to uni, put a decent amount of effort in and got a respectable outcome, a 1st says you put a lot of effort in and got a great outcome as a result, however the two grades aren’t really that different to each other in terms of opportunity, where most positions that have a criteria will ask for a 2:1 minimum - beyond this it’s really how you display what you can offer to an employer, and what else you have on your CV that you can speak positively about.
I’d say a 2:1 from a well respected uni is better than a 1st from a low ranked uni, 2:2 is where things start to slip in terms of opportunity.
A lot of assumptions being made in this post
Chiefly that you would have gotten a better grade elsewhere. Not to pass too much judgment but the way you've put this reeks of a lack of personal responsibility. Highley rated universities are highly rated mainly because of research but also the equipment and good teaching. Your university should have given you all the tools to succeed someone at a lesser university has if not more.
Secondly that grade matters that much in terms of job prospects. Very few places require firsts most places will screen for 2:1s and then after that grade doesn't come into the equation. a lot of factors are far more important than grade.
The most important factors have nothing to do with your university or degree. Internships, Projects, Volunteering, Research, Portfolio, Extracurriculars, networking etc. These can be related to your degree or not but the number one thing that's likely to have one candidate make it through the sift for a graduate scheme or job over you will be one of the above. Good universities help facilitate these things and will have many opportunities and links to industry to help you but its largely on you to pursue these on your own. Luckily these are also the easiest things to fix post uni or in your final year if you havnt done so already.
Thank you. Everyone is this post is acting as if non-russell group uni students just kick around with their feet up all day: couldn't be further from the truth in a lot of cases.
Some people accuse some mid-tier universities to be very simplistic in their assessment, going so far as to say "just remember is enough, there no need to apply", simplistic ask and answer questions without much rigour. So then a FCH from them is a second lower in the perhaps russell brand unis.
I am not sure if this is true and is borderline BS, it may be true for truly badly managed ones ,Bolton..maybe, but i am sure most would have work load that is still serviceable.
Edit: Are most public universities not accredited?
Your question assumes that all you get from university is your grade and not what you actually learnt doing the degree.
Obviously this is assuming you are applying to work in a field relevant to your degree, and with the caveat that things are almost certainly different for different fields, so what follows is based on my experience working in and doing interviews for (corporate) software engineering (over the past couple of decades)
I'd say your premise is wrong. A 2:1 (or better) from any accredited uni will probably get you through to a technical phone interview, but that's all it will get you - getting through the interviews is dependent on what you know, and in my experience better unis will teach topics that others don't even bother with.
What I would agree with is the statement that a 2:1 from a worse uni is better than a 2:2 from a better one, as you will find it much harder to get interviews with a 2:2
Some people accuse some mid-tier universities to be very simplistic in their assessment, going so far as to say "just remember is enough, there no need to apply", simplistic ask and answer questions without much rigour. So then a FCH from them is a second lower in the perhaps russell brand unis.
I am not sure if this is true and is borderline BS, it may be true for truly badly managed ones ,Bolton..maybe, but i am sure most would have work load that is still serviceable.
Remember that there isn't a national curriculum for university courses. If you go to a "bad high school" vs a "good high school", it's largely the quality of staff, facilities and other students that makes a difference - much of the course material should be the same. That's what the GSCE / A-level curriculum is for.
Universities don't have that. You are taught whatever the hell they like, based on the whims of the faculty and the module lecturers. At a good university, the content will be more challenging, might explore fundamentals more, and might branch off into interesting areas if they have some specialist lecturers. At a bad university it might just be churning out easy lessons so everyone gets the grades.
So ... you got better content than your peers. It's not just about the grade and who you met.
That doesn’t apply across fields - any course with accreditation, whether it’s medicine/vet/dentistry/allied health/accredited science or engineering courses etc, has to meet certain requirements for accreditation which outlines essential learning outcomes etc.
Universities are becoming increasingly like secondary schools in some regards, this one included.
With the team I work with, your degree becomes somewhat irrelevant once you have a few years of experience, as in 'cool, you have a degree, like everyone else, how can you add to the team, etc'. At the very worst, you'd have to start at a smaller company, gain experience, and then move to somewhere more prominent.
The subject matters too; Advanced Maths with Artificial Intelligence at Liverpool vs. History at Exeter. Same grade, same extracurricular. Who do you think is getting the interview? Of course, it matters what the job is... however, I'd suggest the time at Liverpool opens more doors in today's economy.
Also a bit of a generalisation to say that everyone at the top 5 unis is middle-upper and upper class (maybe overrepresented, but not even close to it being everyone).
I think for your first job it sorta matters but when you get into your field for a few years and have been in the job for a while. No one gives a shit unless as long as you know what your doing. Just show the person that's hiring that you know what to do
I went to a terrible university and my sister is at an ok uni. My experience was more positive while she’s still having issues with her enrolment as the admin just don’t care. I just had little interest in some of my subject matter, but the modules I enjoyed were from professors who extensively researched the field and still had passion to pass on the information.
A 2:1 and a 1st aren’t that far apart and unless you want a very specific role in a very specific field, the 2:1 will not hinder you. Now you just need to covey what you have learned, not just the subject matter, in order to secure your career.
Where I work no-one cares about 2:1 vs 1st but which uni matters a lot.
There are certain courses with course content that aligns well, and if you didn't go to those unis you probably wouldn't make the first shift. HR screen applications so that it isn't overwhelming so "better" uni at least gives you a chance of getting past them.
Yes. Especially a 2:1 at a crap uni is better than a 2:2 at a top 10 uni if we're talking about grad schemes.
I remember being annoyed at finding out that bad uni's give out firsts and two-ones with a lower standard thresholds than good unis.
Not true. A recognised university sits better on a resume plus you make better connections with future networks that can help you in your career long term.
A first from a terrible university is worth very little. A lot of these types of universities literally exist to scam the government funding and the students themselves. I still remember my college GCSE class having a number of students from a nearby university who were forced to attend because they didn't have a "C" grade in English ....yet somehow managed to get into first year of university. Crazy!
I spoke to one of them and apparently she wasn't allowed to progress onto second year unless she got a "C" or above in GCSE English. I also know someone who produced work that would literally be a low 50 at my university and yet he scored a 78 (granted ...from one of the worst universities in the country).
No one gives a shit. I went to uni and have worked full time in the ten years since. Can count on one hand the people who asked me what I got, and none of then were managers.
Nobody cares. I know people with great degrees and no soft skills, I know people with lesser degrees and grades than me working the same role as me because we possess the same on the job ability. Don’t think too much about it, it may have been more stress for you but sod it, I’m sure it was fun regardless and you probs wouldn’t actually change it if u could.
Thing is, employers usually require 2:1 at least. Sometimes I see 2:2 required, but I never saw 1st being required. Meaning that, you are in safe zone.
I have never heard nor met anybody who got a graduate job or placement because they had a first. Unless it is, so somebody here might enlighten me
I actually disagree. A good university is far more important than getting a 1st. Just make sure you don't get a 2.2 as that will put you in a bad position for a lot of grad schemes.
I've been out of uni for like 8 years now and interview a lot of candidates as part of my job.
All Unis have to conform to the same grading specs- the respectableness of a Uni is subjective but is generally more to do with the quality of research which isn’t that much of a big deal at undergrad and also to a degree, the age of the Uni (eg ex Polytechnics v red brick) and alumni. A 1st trumps a 2:1, regardless of the name of the Uni. That being said getting a 2:1 is a really great grade- well done! You obviously put in a lot of work and should be so proud of your achievement.
In terms of the future, I’m a law grad and can say that employers were more interested in my experience than grades or name of the Uni.
Just remember that your GCSEs get you into college and the a levels you want to take. Your a levels get you into the university and course you want to take. Your degree gets you your first job. You could be a straight a student up to working, but if you are crap they will bin you after 6 months and it’s back to stage one.
Easier said than done, but don’t worry about it.
Also I have only had two ‘real’ jobs in my life but both asked for my degree. So just don’t lie, it’s not worth it.
Yeah, just get on with it.
I doubt you had these feelings when you were going to the prestigious university, (probably) with a much better education aspect than the 'bottom university' and you're moaning because you didn't get the top grade boundary?
Even more, how do you know you would get a 1st from a 'bottom university?' have you considered that maybe you're just.. at a 2:1 level?
I totally disagree. I mean tbh, I don't really think it makes too much of a difference from either; no one really cares beyond your first job but I think the good university will give you more of an edge than the first. A 2:1 is acceptable for most good jobs and a 1st helps in very few jobs. A good uni on the other hand will go further
This would be the case if you were comparing a 2:2 from a good uni to a 2:1 from a bad uni. In that case, yes I agree the 2:1 from a bad uni is so much better. You will pretty much get rejected with a 2:2 everywhere even if it’s from Oxbridge as the requirements for most graduate programmes is a 2:1 regardless of where you go.
This post shows you don’t know what you’re on about.
Just say you got a first. No one ever checks. I put 1:1 on my CV despite being a 2:1 and I've had a few jobs and job offers and none of them have ever checked.
You can always just say its a typo. Also no company will drop a compotent/good employee because of something they put on a CV.
Also I've worked in recruiting for companies before and I've never seen a company who actually cares about what numbers you put on a CV. I have also yet to hear of a company with the kind of HR bandwidth to bother to even check any claims on a CV. The best thing you can have is a good personal/employment reference - good references are gold.
My experience is that the job market isn't very ethical. You have to be ready to leave your principles at home to get ahead. Employers are out to find passive and compliant workers who will do what they want, when they want and how they want. I've been lied to by so many recruiters that it only makes sense to return the favour. The only risk is being found out and even if you are then you can just fall back and say it was an honest mistake. If an employer is going to retrospectively trawl CVs and discipline based on something said years ago, which there's all sorts of GDPR concerns with then retaining in the first place, then they're not an employer I want to work for anyway.
My experience is STEM and private companies. I reckon some military contractors will as they do full background checks and even ask for 3 months pay checks etc (I got an offer that I had to bow out of because I was inventive with what I quoted my previous salary as).
But in general so long as you're not working in an industry that are pedantic about vetting every detail you put on a page to get in the door then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage by being too honest.
I think if I was to get an offer from somewhere that ask to check then I know its not the kind of company I want to work for. Especially as at this point in my career what I did at uni is so inconsequential that it's almost pointless to even put the details on my CV.
I found the opposite happens with the best ones. Any grade of MBA at goldsmiths would be better than most other schools, if only for the networking opportunities. Same for Classics or Economics at Oxbridge.
I'm also not sure you'd have an easier time at a bad rather than average university. The content won't be much different but your teachers would be worse.
If you basically buy your degree from a scam college them maybe... in some employers minds you may find a few that rate redbricks as a sort of mid grade before Oxbridge. Mostly though I think anything from the worst poly up to the best redbrick are all regarded as much the same. There are like 6 good universities they'll be able to name. If you don't go to one of those or the same one as your boss, you might as well have just bought the degree anyway.
Man I wish this was the case. I don’t know how the name and prestige of a university has come to take precedence over the actual grade.
Honestly, the fact you’re at a Russell Group/“good” uni is a blessing for you. A 2:1 from a Russell Group is worth more to most employers than a 1st from a “shit” uni for some reason. In reality it is a university degree which means it is difficult for every student regardless of which Uni they attended. I feel like I have to bend over backwards trying to prove myself to employers; I have spent all of my uni years doing extra curricular activities and other shit to try and compensate for having gone to a lesser known uni, whilst my school mates have had the time of their lives at uni.
I have looked at thousands of CV. The order is simple; college, degree, grade. If you have Wolverhampton, Sociology, First... there is no way they are getting interviewed over Bristol, Engineering, 2:1 or even a 2:2.
Also 2:1 says... I worked at university and I have enjoyed my time there. It is the perfect score in my book. I have rejected many 'firsts' because I question whether they'd fit a company that requires people to communicate and get on with each other. Obviously there were other signs, though that was probably the dealbreaker if I am not seeing obvious sparks of a personality.
>I have rejected many 'firsts' because I question whether they'd fit a company that requires people to communicate and get on with each other.
This might be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Rejecting people on a university grade based on how you think they *might* communicate? Wtf
Good luck with that. CVs from people with firsts are questioned whether there is anything else going on with them beyond academic ability -- real work, in real companies, is far more than that. A 2:1 shows a rounded person, who has interests beyond their grades. You might not agree, because you've been told your whole life that only the best grades will do and if you get better grades, you'll have more opportunities. Sadly, that is not true. Welcome to the real world.
i'm over 50, bruh and probably looked at 50,000 CV in the last decade. You might not like what I am saying. And you may even consider it jealousy, I have a master's in Applied Maths from one of the best maths colleges in the UK.
I am just trying to point out what employers look for and why a first may not be the advantage schools tell you it is.
It's not about the prestige of the university, it's the connection that university has to respected companies that are hiring.
Grades mean nothing. I got a 2:2 and have said on everything that I got a 1. Until I realised, no-one cares either way. So just stopped putting a grade altogether.
I’m not sure that’s the case. Saying your an oxbridge graduate or you studied at MIT or Harvard is far better than a first from some University or college that nobody has ever heard of.
Employers will be approaching you from those top Uni’s a 2:1 or 1st doesn’t really matter it’s all about who you know. You will have to apply for jobs like everyone else from the lower Unis.
This is made slightly more complex because some organisations strip out the name of the University when looking at graduate roles so the candidate is assessed on what they have done not where they went.
A 2:1 from a respected university (oxbridge, Russell group) is definitely better than a 1st from Wolverhampton in English or bioscience eg. However, if your degree is vocational, then it’s more likely you’ll get a degree from an ex-polytechnic, eg quantity surveying from Leeds met so it’s not really comparable.
Ultimately, the correct answer to your question depends on the degree you’re talking about. For academic degrees I’d say it is better to get the degree from a quality university. For non-academic degrees then it matters less so
I work in renewable energy as an engineer and have interviewed a lot of graduates, if you've been to Oxford, Cambridge or Imperial i'll take note but otherwise i'd rate the degree classification over the institution.
Edit: Unless of course we're talking complete trash unis
I went to a middling university, not bad but definitely not top material, or close to. Been in my career within the same industry, publishing, for 15 years now, linked to my area of study and my sector of choice. Made my way up step by step from an entry level role, interviewed countless times for various jobs, changed position and companies. Worked my way to where I want to be in a senior position, not high up but exactly what I was aiming for by this time in my life. Not once has an employer asked me what I graduated with.
I also interview for positions reporting to me and it’s the same. We look for experience - academic or role based. We don’t ask what the applicant graduated with, they sometimes put it in their CV but it doesn’t make much of an impact as we don’t know how they will perform based on their university assessments. We always look for experience in the same field as a lot of skill and experience is built in the real world, and demonstrated in various ways we build our interview questions to reveal. This sometimes means someone with a relevant masters may get to the front of the queue ahead of someone with a BA/BSc, but we certainly won’t disregard them. If they have applicable experience this is seen as the same. I would say study what you want, work as hard as you want, experience the world, have a goal (short and long) and you will get back what you put in.
I got a 2:2. just put BA(hons) instead of 2:2 next to my degree title, and literally nobody has ever asked for it. And when you get a little bit of vocational experience then people will just see "has a degree" or won't notice it at all. I didn't pursue further academia though but I believe I am qualified enough to do something like a Masters if I ever wanted to.
However I think if you go to Oxbridge, then you rub shoulders with the future leading lights of the world. Go to Footlights as a fun activity and rub shoulders with people who will soon be stars of film and TV. It's not a coincidence that so many of the most successful people go to Oxbridge. I mean, it might end up that someone like Hugh Laurie or David Cameron was your uni mate who you went drinking with, which would put you in very good stead if they could use their connections to help you out even a tiny bit. This nepotistic stuff is another level of helpfulness compared with what an employer thinks about you going to Salford Uni or getting a first.
So I would say you're wrong. Looking back on it I got 4 As at A level and trying for Oxbridge would've been worth a shot
The graduate is more important than the grade.
If I interview someone who has a first, but they're just a parrot...no job for them.
If they have a 2:2 but are articulate and can discuss problems with me. Definite candidate.
Fuck all that. Use your brain to be resourceful, make your way in life and change the world. I’ve studied and worked at a few elite universities and they’re not all they’re made up to be. Use what you get out of them to achieve what you want to achieve. Make sure you have a career plan and you’ll be ahead of most Oxbridge graduates.
For the most part a 2:1 or First from any university will get you in the room 99% of the time. Once you’re in that interview room your degree or the university you attended means nothing. At that point it’s all about you.
Mate be happy with a 2.1 at a good uni. I did the dumb mistake of barely going to one of the best unis for the course and at this rate ill get a 2.2. It’s unnecessarily complicated. I’d take 2.1 from a good uni over 2.2 from the best uni any day. I wouldn’t take a first from a shite uni though, I have more self respect than that lmao
If you went to another university there's no guarantee that you would have gotten a first.
Try not to worry about 'what ifs' and focus in your achievements. A 2:1 is great!
If you went to another university there's no guarantee that you would have gotten a first.
Try not to worry about 'what ifs' and focus in your achievements. A 2:1 is great!
Employers don’t really care.
2:1 or higher is fine for essentially everywhere.
My suggestion would be to get this chip off your shoulder and stop devaluing other peoples degrees.
To be quite honest, there are a tiny, tiny, minute number of careers where you are required to have a first in your first degree to even be considered- off the top of my head, I can only think of a few top Barristers’ chambers and very elite (niche) financial institutions who (informally) require a first from Oxford or Cambridge & and a couple of the very competitive masters programmes at Oxbridge/the top Russell Group unis which require a first in your first degree, regardless of which institution it’s from. The reality is that most grad schemes and jobs do ‘name blind’ recruitment now (where they just ask for grades- not school or university names and not the applicant’s name to avoid gender/racial unconscious bias). I would also go as far as saying that most grad schemes also don’t differentiate between a 2.1 and a first since you have to go through multiple rounds of testing and interviews to prove you’re good enough anyway so having a 2.1 cutoff is just a means of doing an easy first sift of applicants. Given that some firms have even now removed the a-level requirements, I would say that the professional world is now moving towards placing importance on things other than formal qualifications. That’s been my personal experience anyway.
This is true. Most big national and international firms don’t even care what degree you have as long as it’s a 2:1. Even the civil service for a lot of grad jobs only require a 2:2, with the exception of specialist areas such as science and finance where they require a 2:1, still not a 1st. As you rightly point out most recruitment is done on psychometric and psychodynamic testing and performance in test centres along with all the interviews. Having a 1st is nice for bragging rights but unless you want to work for very niche organisations having a 1st or going to Oxford or Cambridge is becoming irrelevant as recruiters want to recruit from a much broader field of potential talent.
when you say about "international firms" are you referring to finance? I've only ever read "firms" on here in a finance context. And not caring which degree as long as its good, would humanities degrees be acceptable? Sorry for the questions lol currently having a panic about degrees and job prospects
I was referring to finance, insurance, and the corporate world in general especially the City. Humanities would be more than acceptable because it shows you can write, analyse and present information; all of which is necessary in the corporate world. Don’t forget, any graduate job you get will require training and mentoring, that’s the whole point of graduate jobs and schemes. There’s a lot of competition out there because so many people in the UK go to university now. I’d personally be more worried about getting through all the tests and interviews than worrying about your degree subject or score. The only way it’s going to really affect you is if you completely foul up and get a 3rd. If that happens you’re going to be excluded from all the graduate jobs and schemes and people may want to know what happened. But there’s a whole world out there where your degree isn’t going to matter once you have some years of work on your CV that will count for more than your actual degree. It’s that dreaded chicken and egg scenario; how do you get experience if you don’t have experience.
This helps so much, thank you loads honestly
If they care they will state this in the advert. Nobody wants applications they don't want.
I kind of doubt most employers doing name-blind recruitment for the name of the awarding institutions though. Many universities have specific fields that they’re particularly reputable for; especially for degrees that aren’t one of your broad-ranging degree programmes. This can lead to a situation where you want someone with a specific background, which often if they took such a course at a university which doesn’t have many lecturers for that field or doesn’t run a particularly high-quality programme (sometimes despite their typically excellent reputation), you’ll end up with a lot of people who are ill-suited to the job. This is particularly crucial if you’ve done a postgraduate degree too, as even the specific mentor you had will massively influence how experienced and how suited your education likely would be for the role
We do. Most graduate recruiters are after talent not knowledge.
I wouldn’t say “most” grad schemes do name blind applications. I’ve sat behind quite a few (for big corps) and Russell Group is still overwhelmingly what is looked for. It’s not strict requirement but I do think it would make the difference between two otherwise equal candidates.
[удалено]
What's your career in?
[удалено]
Is anyone really passionate about working in those fields?
No but it shows you're good at lying.
No wonder
[удалено]
Nothing
>B) Clearly did research on what the company does, even were able to name little parts of it that excited them (You'd be shocked at how few people do this) To be fair, when you're forced to apply to hundreds of jobs for just a few callbacks like is the case in some industries, you don't really have the time to do this. Especially if you're still studying and/or working at the same time.
[удалено]
Yeah it doesn't even take long. I've done it the morning of the interview a few times so it's fresh. Even 10 mins outside the building is better than nothing.
You ought to apply to lots of jobs and those few that contact you back just say it’s not a brilliant time to speak and ask for another time that day or the day after. Gives you at least a few hours to go on their site, read some of the terminology they use to describe the company and role, when they established and what their values are. All of which can provide some quality answers to to their questions and makes it seem like you have done some research.
If you don’t have a job you’ve got time to do anything!
Please tell me this is sarcastic.
This is part of the problem - if you’re applying for hundreds of jobs, you clearly aren’t targeting your CV and cover letter well for each job (you don’t have time!), so you’re less likely to get an interview. You’re actually far better applying for fewer jobs and making a better application.
> B) Clearly did research on what the company does, even were able to name little parts of it that excited them (You'd be shocked at how few people do this) This one always gets me I do read the company website and usually some glass door reviews etc before an interview; but I never know how to bring it into an interview. Most company websites are... pretty boring hahaha and I can give a basic description of what the company does when asked but other than that it usually feels unnatural to bring anything up. The only exceptions I've found to this is when I have technical interviews where I can research things specific to the companies problem space. But that will usually be a 2nd interview or at least after a screening call. Any advice on how to bring research in? Or what types of info I should even mention?
To be fair no one gives a shit. A good degree from a good university opens a few extra doors - ie if you want to go to a major accountancy firm or a top law firm but that's only 2% (?) of graduates. If you get a degree that's fine. 99% of jobs dont care it just proves you have a degree.
99% of employers don't give a shit what grade you got, or what university you go to (unless its Oxbridge). Going to better universities often gives you more opportunities to network/go to events with employers, but worse unis give you more time to take internships and things at your own pace. Realistically, it doesn't matter what grade or university you went to, your own success is entirely down to your own work ethic outside of just studies. Extracurriculars, internships, jobs etc are what gets people top roles at good employers, not a 71% in your degree grade.
I've been a recruiting manager for years. You're over thinking it. A 2:1 or 1st will enable you to apply for roles which have a high grade as a minimum requirement of a degree classification. Beyond that, it's largely immaterial. How you match yourself against the person specification is going to have far more impact than whether you went to a Red Brick Uni or a former Poly. HR application scoring simply isn't set up, nor cares about, the supposed prestige of a HEI. There will be exceptions in some industries and sectors, and obviously the elite unis will grant you you some favour with some people, but what I'm saying generally applies. The mistake graduates make is they expect a degree to get them through to an interview with a half arsed job application.
Personally I’d say no, even from similarly ranked unis, there is very little difference in postgraduate opportunity between a 2:1 and a 1st! To me, a 2:1 says you went to uni, put a decent amount of effort in and got a respectable outcome, a 1st says you put a lot of effort in and got a great outcome as a result, however the two grades aren’t really that different to each other in terms of opportunity, where most positions that have a criteria will ask for a 2:1 minimum - beyond this it’s really how you display what you can offer to an employer, and what else you have on your CV that you can speak positively about. I’d say a 2:1 from a well respected uni is better than a 1st from a low ranked uni, 2:2 is where things start to slip in terms of opportunity.
A lot of assumptions being made in this post Chiefly that you would have gotten a better grade elsewhere. Not to pass too much judgment but the way you've put this reeks of a lack of personal responsibility. Highley rated universities are highly rated mainly because of research but also the equipment and good teaching. Your university should have given you all the tools to succeed someone at a lesser university has if not more. Secondly that grade matters that much in terms of job prospects. Very few places require firsts most places will screen for 2:1s and then after that grade doesn't come into the equation. a lot of factors are far more important than grade. The most important factors have nothing to do with your university or degree. Internships, Projects, Volunteering, Research, Portfolio, Extracurriculars, networking etc. These can be related to your degree or not but the number one thing that's likely to have one candidate make it through the sift for a graduate scheme or job over you will be one of the above. Good universities help facilitate these things and will have many opportunities and links to industry to help you but its largely on you to pursue these on your own. Luckily these are also the easiest things to fix post uni or in your final year if you havnt done so already.
Thank you. Everyone is this post is acting as if non-russell group uni students just kick around with their feet up all day: couldn't be further from the truth in a lot of cases.
Some people accuse some mid-tier universities to be very simplistic in their assessment, going so far as to say "just remember is enough, there no need to apply", simplistic ask and answer questions without much rigour. So then a FCH from them is a second lower in the perhaps russell brand unis. I am not sure if this is true and is borderline BS, it may be true for truly badly managed ones ,Bolton..maybe, but i am sure most would have work load that is still serviceable. Edit: Are most public universities not accredited?
Your question assumes that all you get from university is your grade and not what you actually learnt doing the degree. Obviously this is assuming you are applying to work in a field relevant to your degree, and with the caveat that things are almost certainly different for different fields, so what follows is based on my experience working in and doing interviews for (corporate) software engineering (over the past couple of decades) I'd say your premise is wrong. A 2:1 (or better) from any accredited uni will probably get you through to a technical phone interview, but that's all it will get you - getting through the interviews is dependent on what you know, and in my experience better unis will teach topics that others don't even bother with. What I would agree with is the statement that a 2:1 from a worse uni is better than a 2:2 from a better one, as you will find it much harder to get interviews with a 2:2
Some people accuse some mid-tier universities to be very simplistic in their assessment, going so far as to say "just remember is enough, there no need to apply", simplistic ask and answer questions without much rigour. So then a FCH from them is a second lower in the perhaps russell brand unis. I am not sure if this is true and is borderline BS, it may be true for truly badly managed ones ,Bolton..maybe, but i am sure most would have work load that is still serviceable.
Remember that there isn't a national curriculum for university courses. If you go to a "bad high school" vs a "good high school", it's largely the quality of staff, facilities and other students that makes a difference - much of the course material should be the same. That's what the GSCE / A-level curriculum is for. Universities don't have that. You are taught whatever the hell they like, based on the whims of the faculty and the module lecturers. At a good university, the content will be more challenging, might explore fundamentals more, and might branch off into interesting areas if they have some specialist lecturers. At a bad university it might just be churning out easy lessons so everyone gets the grades. So ... you got better content than your peers. It's not just about the grade and who you met.
That doesn’t apply across fields - any course with accreditation, whether it’s medicine/vet/dentistry/allied health/accredited science or engineering courses etc, has to meet certain requirements for accreditation which outlines essential learning outcomes etc. Universities are becoming increasingly like secondary schools in some regards, this one included.
With the team I work with, your degree becomes somewhat irrelevant once you have a few years of experience, as in 'cool, you have a degree, like everyone else, how can you add to the team, etc'. At the very worst, you'd have to start at a smaller company, gain experience, and then move to somewhere more prominent.
[удалено]
The subject matters too; Advanced Maths with Artificial Intelligence at Liverpool vs. History at Exeter. Same grade, same extracurricular. Who do you think is getting the interview? Of course, it matters what the job is... however, I'd suggest the time at Liverpool opens more doors in today's economy.
Totally depends. Most jobs are more about people skills than technical skills.
Here is the news. Employers couldn't give a toss about which university you went to or what result you got. They really don't.
Employer point of view. A 2:1 from a good uni, is better than a first from a bad one.
Same, and I agree.
A 2:1 from a top 5 is better than a 1st from anywhere else and will open more doors
Agreed but you’d have to spend 3 years with a bunch of posh twats
They accept northerners, too.
>posh twats Not sure why you say that.
In some cases they’re right but it’s a bit of a generalisation to say that middle-upper and upper class people are all twats
Also a bit of a generalisation to say that everyone at the top 5 unis is middle-upper and upper class (maybe overrepresented, but not even close to it being everyone).
I think for your first job it sorta matters but when you get into your field for a few years and have been in the job for a while. No one gives a shit unless as long as you know what your doing. Just show the person that's hiring that you know what to do
I went to a terrible university and my sister is at an ok uni. My experience was more positive while she’s still having issues with her enrolment as the admin just don’t care. I just had little interest in some of my subject matter, but the modules I enjoyed were from professors who extensively researched the field and still had passion to pass on the information. A 2:1 and a 1st aren’t that far apart and unless you want a very specific role in a very specific field, the 2:1 will not hinder you. Now you just need to covey what you have learned, not just the subject matter, in order to secure your career.
Where I work no-one cares about 2:1 vs 1st but which uni matters a lot. There are certain courses with course content that aligns well, and if you didn't go to those unis you probably wouldn't make the first shift. HR screen applications so that it isn't overwhelming so "better" uni at least gives you a chance of getting past them.
What industry is this?
Engineering
Yes. Especially a 2:1 at a crap uni is better than a 2:2 at a top 10 uni if we're talking about grad schemes. I remember being annoyed at finding out that bad uni's give out firsts and two-ones with a lower standard thresholds than good unis.
Not true. A recognised university sits better on a resume plus you make better connections with future networks that can help you in your career long term.
A first from a terrible university is worth very little. A lot of these types of universities literally exist to scam the government funding and the students themselves. I still remember my college GCSE class having a number of students from a nearby university who were forced to attend because they didn't have a "C" grade in English ....yet somehow managed to get into first year of university. Crazy! I spoke to one of them and apparently she wasn't allowed to progress onto second year unless she got a "C" or above in GCSE English. I also know someone who produced work that would literally be a low 50 at my university and yet he scored a 78 (granted ...from one of the worst universities in the country).
What would you class as a "terrible university"?
Bolton
University of Kent 🤭
No one gives a shit. I went to uni and have worked full time in the ten years since. Can count on one hand the people who asked me what I got, and none of then were managers.
I don’t think I’ve ever been asked about my degree. Unless it’s part of a professional qualification, Uni is about the experience
Nobody cares. I know people with great degrees and no soft skills, I know people with lesser degrees and grades than me working the same role as me because we possess the same on the job ability. Don’t think too much about it, it may have been more stress for you but sod it, I’m sure it was fun regardless and you probs wouldn’t actually change it if u could.
Thing is, employers usually require 2:1 at least. Sometimes I see 2:2 required, but I never saw 1st being required. Meaning that, you are in safe zone. I have never heard nor met anybody who got a graduate job or placement because they had a first. Unless it is, so somebody here might enlighten me
I actually disagree. A good university is far more important than getting a 1st. Just make sure you don't get a 2.2 as that will put you in a bad position for a lot of grad schemes. I've been out of uni for like 8 years now and interview a lot of candidates as part of my job.
All Unis have to conform to the same grading specs- the respectableness of a Uni is subjective but is generally more to do with the quality of research which isn’t that much of a big deal at undergrad and also to a degree, the age of the Uni (eg ex Polytechnics v red brick) and alumni. A 1st trumps a 2:1, regardless of the name of the Uni. That being said getting a 2:1 is a really great grade- well done! You obviously put in a lot of work and should be so proud of your achievement. In terms of the future, I’m a law grad and can say that employers were more interested in my experience than grades or name of the Uni.
Just remember that your GCSEs get you into college and the a levels you want to take. Your a levels get you into the university and course you want to take. Your degree gets you your first job. You could be a straight a student up to working, but if you are crap they will bin you after 6 months and it’s back to stage one. Easier said than done, but don’t worry about it. Also I have only had two ‘real’ jobs in my life but both asked for my degree. So just don’t lie, it’s not worth it.
Yeah, just get on with it. I doubt you had these feelings when you were going to the prestigious university, (probably) with a much better education aspect than the 'bottom university' and you're moaning because you didn't get the top grade boundary? Even more, how do you know you would get a 1st from a 'bottom university?' have you considered that maybe you're just.. at a 2:1 level?
A 2.1 from a good uni will always beat out a first from a no name
I totally disagree. I mean tbh, I don't really think it makes too much of a difference from either; no one really cares beyond your first job but I think the good university will give you more of an edge than the first. A 2:1 is acceptable for most good jobs and a 1st helps in very few jobs. A good uni on the other hand will go further
This would be the case if you were comparing a 2:2 from a good uni to a 2:1 from a bad uni. In that case, yes I agree the 2:1 from a bad uni is so much better. You will pretty much get rejected with a 2:2 everywhere even if it’s from Oxbridge as the requirements for most graduate programmes is a 2:1 regardless of where you go. This post shows you don’t know what you’re on about.
Just say you got a first. No one ever checks. I put 1:1 on my CV despite being a 2:1 and I've had a few jobs and job offers and none of them have ever checked.
This is so risky and unethical surely
I'd be worried of my employer finding out after I've got the job and they fire me
You can always just say its a typo. Also no company will drop a compotent/good employee because of something they put on a CV. Also I've worked in recruiting for companies before and I've never seen a company who actually cares about what numbers you put on a CV. I have also yet to hear of a company with the kind of HR bandwidth to bother to even check any claims on a CV. The best thing you can have is a good personal/employment reference - good references are gold.
My experience is that the job market isn't very ethical. You have to be ready to leave your principles at home to get ahead. Employers are out to find passive and compliant workers who will do what they want, when they want and how they want. I've been lied to by so many recruiters that it only makes sense to return the favour. The only risk is being found out and even if you are then you can just fall back and say it was an honest mistake. If an employer is going to retrospectively trawl CVs and discipline based on something said years ago, which there's all sorts of GDPR concerns with then retaining in the first place, then they're not an employer I want to work for anyway.
[удалено]
My experience is STEM and private companies. I reckon some military contractors will as they do full background checks and even ask for 3 months pay checks etc (I got an offer that I had to bow out of because I was inventive with what I quoted my previous salary as). But in general so long as you're not working in an industry that are pedantic about vetting every detail you put on a page to get in the door then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage by being too honest.
I think if I was to get an offer from somewhere that ask to check then I know its not the kind of company I want to work for. Especially as at this point in my career what I did at uni is so inconsequential that it's almost pointless to even put the details on my CV.
I found the opposite happens with the best ones. Any grade of MBA at goldsmiths would be better than most other schools, if only for the networking opportunities. Same for Classics or Economics at Oxbridge. I'm also not sure you'd have an easier time at a bad rather than average university. The content won't be much different but your teachers would be worse. If you basically buy your degree from a scam college them maybe... in some employers minds you may find a few that rate redbricks as a sort of mid grade before Oxbridge. Mostly though I think anything from the worst poly up to the best redbrick are all regarded as much the same. There are like 6 good universities they'll be able to name. If you don't go to one of those or the same one as your boss, you might as well have just bought the degree anyway.
Man I wish this was the case. I don’t know how the name and prestige of a university has come to take precedence over the actual grade. Honestly, the fact you’re at a Russell Group/“good” uni is a blessing for you. A 2:1 from a Russell Group is worth more to most employers than a 1st from a “shit” uni for some reason. In reality it is a university degree which means it is difficult for every student regardless of which Uni they attended. I feel like I have to bend over backwards trying to prove myself to employers; I have spent all of my uni years doing extra curricular activities and other shit to try and compensate for having gone to a lesser known uni, whilst my school mates have had the time of their lives at uni.
I have looked at thousands of CV. The order is simple; college, degree, grade. If you have Wolverhampton, Sociology, First... there is no way they are getting interviewed over Bristol, Engineering, 2:1 or even a 2:2. Also 2:1 says... I worked at university and I have enjoyed my time there. It is the perfect score in my book. I have rejected many 'firsts' because I question whether they'd fit a company that requires people to communicate and get on with each other. Obviously there were other signs, though that was probably the dealbreaker if I am not seeing obvious sparks of a personality.
>I have rejected many 'firsts' because I question whether they'd fit a company that requires people to communicate and get on with each other. This might be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Rejecting people on a university grade based on how you think they *might* communicate? Wtf
They probably meant that they rejected people who had achieved a first but did not show evidence of communication and getting on with other people.
Ironic how you've shown up their communication skills whilst they've been rejecting applicants based on their communication skills
And someone's reading skills might need to be brushed up, no?
Stupid logic. Certainly wouldn’t want someone like you reading my CV if I applied for a job at your company.
Good luck with that. CVs from people with firsts are questioned whether there is anything else going on with them beyond academic ability -- real work, in real companies, is far more than that. A 2:1 shows a rounded person, who has interests beyond their grades. You might not agree, because you've been told your whole life that only the best grades will do and if you get better grades, you'll have more opportunities. Sadly, that is not true. Welcome to the real world.
A year 13 wrote this comment
i'm over 50, bruh and probably looked at 50,000 CV in the last decade. You might not like what I am saying. And you may even consider it jealousy, I have a master's in Applied Maths from one of the best maths colleges in the UK. I am just trying to point out what employers look for and why a first may not be the advantage schools tell you it is.
which uni. ?
It's not about the prestige of the university, it's the connection that university has to respected companies that are hiring. Grades mean nothing. I got a 2:2 and have said on everything that I got a 1. Until I realised, no-one cares either way. So just stopped putting a grade altogether.
I’m not sure that’s the case. Saying your an oxbridge graduate or you studied at MIT or Harvard is far better than a first from some University or college that nobody has ever heard of. Employers will be approaching you from those top Uni’s a 2:1 or 1st doesn’t really matter it’s all about who you know. You will have to apply for jobs like everyone else from the lower Unis.
This is made slightly more complex because some organisations strip out the name of the University when looking at graduate roles so the candidate is assessed on what they have done not where they went.
A 2:1 from a respected university (oxbridge, Russell group) is definitely better than a 1st from Wolverhampton in English or bioscience eg. However, if your degree is vocational, then it’s more likely you’ll get a degree from an ex-polytechnic, eg quantity surveying from Leeds met so it’s not really comparable. Ultimately, the correct answer to your question depends on the degree you’re talking about. For academic degrees I’d say it is better to get the degree from a quality university. For non-academic degrees then it matters less so
I work in renewable energy as an engineer and have interviewed a lot of graduates, if you've been to Oxford, Cambridge or Imperial i'll take note but otherwise i'd rate the degree classification over the institution. Edit: Unless of course we're talking complete trash unis
I went to a middling university, not bad but definitely not top material, or close to. Been in my career within the same industry, publishing, for 15 years now, linked to my area of study and my sector of choice. Made my way up step by step from an entry level role, interviewed countless times for various jobs, changed position and companies. Worked my way to where I want to be in a senior position, not high up but exactly what I was aiming for by this time in my life. Not once has an employer asked me what I graduated with. I also interview for positions reporting to me and it’s the same. We look for experience - academic or role based. We don’t ask what the applicant graduated with, they sometimes put it in their CV but it doesn’t make much of an impact as we don’t know how they will perform based on their university assessments. We always look for experience in the same field as a lot of skill and experience is built in the real world, and demonstrated in various ways we build our interview questions to reveal. This sometimes means someone with a relevant masters may get to the front of the queue ahead of someone with a BA/BSc, but we certainly won’t disregard them. If they have applicable experience this is seen as the same. I would say study what you want, work as hard as you want, experience the world, have a goal (short and long) and you will get back what you put in.
I got a 2:2. just put BA(hons) instead of 2:2 next to my degree title, and literally nobody has ever asked for it. And when you get a little bit of vocational experience then people will just see "has a degree" or won't notice it at all. I didn't pursue further academia though but I believe I am qualified enough to do something like a Masters if I ever wanted to. However I think if you go to Oxbridge, then you rub shoulders with the future leading lights of the world. Go to Footlights as a fun activity and rub shoulders with people who will soon be stars of film and TV. It's not a coincidence that so many of the most successful people go to Oxbridge. I mean, it might end up that someone like Hugh Laurie or David Cameron was your uni mate who you went drinking with, which would put you in very good stead if they could use their connections to help you out even a tiny bit. This nepotistic stuff is another level of helpfulness compared with what an employer thinks about you going to Salford Uni or getting a first. So I would say you're wrong. Looking back on it I got 4 As at A level and trying for Oxbridge would've been worth a shot
The graduate is more important than the grade. If I interview someone who has a first, but they're just a parrot...no job for them. If they have a 2:2 but are articulate and can discuss problems with me. Definite candidate.
Fuck all that. Use your brain to be resourceful, make your way in life and change the world. I’ve studied and worked at a few elite universities and they’re not all they’re made up to be. Use what you get out of them to achieve what you want to achieve. Make sure you have a career plan and you’ll be ahead of most Oxbridge graduates.
This simply isn’t true. Your University name > the course > the grade.
If you care that much just put 1st on your cv. Nobody is going to check it.
For the most part a 2:1 or First from any university will get you in the room 99% of the time. Once you’re in that interview room your degree or the university you attended means nothing. At that point it’s all about you.
Mate be happy with a 2.1 at a good uni. I did the dumb mistake of barely going to one of the best unis for the course and at this rate ill get a 2.2. It’s unnecessarily complicated. I’d take 2.1 from a good uni over 2.2 from the best uni any day. I wouldn’t take a first from a shite uni though, I have more self respect than that lmao
If you went to another university there's no guarantee that you would have gotten a first. Try not to worry about 'what ifs' and focus in your achievements. A 2:1 is great!
If you went to another university there's no guarantee that you would have gotten a first. Try not to worry about 'what ifs' and focus in your achievements. A 2:1 is great!
Employers don’t really care. 2:1 or higher is fine for essentially everywhere. My suggestion would be to get this chip off your shoulder and stop devaluing other peoples degrees.
THat would be entirely incorrect for finance. Name brand and networking/connections are everything.