I can see that, a 1st from Cambridge is more impressive than a 1st from Manchester, but I’d question your attitude if you were able to get into Cambridge then only ended up with a 2:1. If you got a 2:1 from Manchester I’d just think you were pretty normal for a professional level job. As someone who recruits 3-5 years post Uni I genuinely couldn’t care less.
You definitely want to prioritise getting at least a 2:1 above university reputation, getting a 2:2 instantly puts your CV into the trash for any of the many graduate jobs with “2:1 honours degree” as a requirement.
Far fewer companies have something like “Must have graduated from a university ranked in the top 15 in the uk according to x news source” as that is far more subjective for a requirement.
Get your upper 2.1 (65%+ usually) and focus less on the establishment itself. A handful of years post-graduation, if you tick the HR box to say you have such and such a qualification, then your work experience, previous and current performance, and, importantly, your personality and perceived ability to work as part of a team become much more important.
I suppose this is partly as a result of qualification inflation. When the majority of your candidates, if not all, have a Bachelors at minimum, other factors just become more important.
There is no doubt that the top unis have leant to heavily on the value of who you studied with rather than what actually value they added to a student. However the thing to take away from this is the idea that university A is better than University B because this ranking and that alumni is a really simplistic way to see things. The reality is the best university is the university that is best for a student.
Degrees in general matter less now than they did 20 years ago. I’m in the camp that experience is more important above all.
Depends. A degree from Oxbridge is going to get you a lot further in the civil service than a degree from Bournemouth.
It’s definitely still worth considering one of the great universities: Oxford, Cambridge or Hull.
In a result that will astound no one, getting a 2:1 is a lot better than getting a 2:2 no matter where you went
I got a 3rd class honours and didn’t have any issues as a graduate getting a job in my field.
So looking at me, the reports findings are toss.
I imagine some of this effect is from the inclusivity rules many employers use, which bar you from naming your university.
Can concur. Got a 2:1 from a shit Uni but it has taken me far.
There is definitely merit in getting selected for a top tier university because of their strict selection processes.
Depends. I went to a college and basically did an OU degree. Two lecturers actually worked in industry. Whereas my peers went to say, Teesside, with absolutely amazing lecturers from our industry. Their work was miles ahead of ours. Yet my degree was done at the same time, same level, same modules. But their resources were insane. A 2:2 from Teesside or Huds totally means more in my industry than Leeds.
Even then! Depends. Someone in my class moved to Japan and got a job there within weeks. He was shit hot at what he does. I struggled really bad.
100% disagree. Other than looking at Politics to prove this is not true, talk to any recruiter in finance in London. Grade means nothing, where you went means everything.
I got a first several months ago which I’m very pleased with, but I can’t say I’ve found many jobs or grad roles that explicitly ask for any grade. This is all in tech/IT/programming so I guess the focus may be different from other areas.
16 comments
I can see that, a 1st from Cambridge is more impressive than a 1st from Manchester, but I’d question your attitude if you were able to get into Cambridge then only ended up with a 2:1. If you got a 2:1 from Manchester I’d just think you were pretty normal for a professional level job. As someone who recruits 3-5 years post Uni I genuinely couldn’t care less.
You definitely want to prioritise getting at least a 2:1 above university reputation, getting a 2:2 instantly puts your CV into the trash for any of the many graduate jobs with “2:1 honours degree” as a requirement.
Far fewer companies have something like “Must have graduated from a university ranked in the top 15 in the uk according to x news source” as that is far more subjective for a requirement.
Get your upper 2.1 (65%+ usually) and focus less on the establishment itself. A handful of years post-graduation, if you tick the HR box to say you have such and such a qualification, then your work experience, previous and current performance, and, importantly, your personality and perceived ability to work as part of a team become much more important.
I suppose this is partly as a result of qualification inflation. When the majority of your candidates, if not all, have a Bachelors at minimum, other factors just become more important.
There is no doubt that the top unis have leant to heavily on the value of who you studied with rather than what actually value they added to a student. However the thing to take away from this is the idea that university A is better than University B because this ranking and that alumni is a really simplistic way to see things. The reality is the best university is the university that is best for a student.
Degrees in general matter less now than they did 20 years ago. I’m in the camp that experience is more important above all.
Depends. A degree from Oxbridge is going to get you a lot further in the civil service than a degree from Bournemouth.
It’s definitely still worth considering one of the great universities: Oxford, Cambridge or Hull.
In a result that will astound no one, getting a 2:1 is a lot better than getting a 2:2 no matter where you went
I got a 3rd class honours and didn’t have any issues as a graduate getting a job in my field.
So looking at me, the reports findings are toss.
I imagine some of this effect is from the inclusivity rules many employers use, which bar you from naming your university.
Can concur. Got a 2:1 from a shit Uni but it has taken me far.
There is definitely merit in getting selected for a top tier university because of their strict selection processes.
Depends. I went to a college and basically did an OU degree. Two lecturers actually worked in industry. Whereas my peers went to say, Teesside, with absolutely amazing lecturers from our industry. Their work was miles ahead of ours. Yet my degree was done at the same time, same level, same modules. But their resources were insane. A 2:2 from Teesside or Huds totally means more in my industry than Leeds.
Even then! Depends. Someone in my class moved to Japan and got a job there within weeks. He was shit hot at what he does. I struggled really bad.
People with Firsts reading these comments feeling like [this](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRZKgtBt2lHgNt7nStT7A68RjPHVSxBFI6Ywg&usqp=CAU) but still being underpaid as everyone else here.
100% disagree. Other than looking at Politics to prove this is not true, talk to any recruiter in finance in London. Grade means nothing, where you went means everything.
I got a first several months ago which I’m very pleased with, but I can’t say I’ve found many jobs or grad roles that explicitly ask for any grade. This is all in tech/IT/programming so I guess the focus may be different from other areas.