Bad A-level grades, can bite you in the rear end, 6 years in the future

[sinister_stu]

Something I'm highly dubious about. In my mind (and it would seem, the mind of employers) that the standard of a course has a very strong correlation with its entry requirements. Departments often get their reputation from research or resident academics, which will have little affect on the standard of the undergraduate course. Don't get me wrong, going to a good dept in a good university is great, but going to a so called top dept which only requires CDE at A-Level can't be offering a course is top notch.

Taking my uni as an example then... The department is rated very highly, top 5, and the uni as a whole is 2nd quartile. The entry requirements for the course I did are reasonable but not as high as for the top universities. I didn't actually come close to the entry requirements, but they let me on as there was still space on the course (I was originally intending to do a music and sound recording degree but didn't achieve the ABB required, so they switched me to a different course at the same uni). The uni has one of the highest levels of employment after graduating (not sure what it is now but it was number 1), my department in fact has a 100% record for employment and the average salary for graduates was 24k last year (for the degree I obtained).

So the point I am making is that the quality of the department must have some bearing or they wouldn't be doing so well in terms of graduate employment rate.

 

[The Pat]

Highly, it has an amazing biology department. Best in the UK, except we are getting a new one. After I leave gah.

Its a highly respected Uni. Well worth a look if you could stand the night life!

The computer science department is very good quality from what I have heard. Thats why I applied. Not too keen now you said that about the night life. Hopefully Leeds will be able to fill some of the void and then Manchester when I come home at the holidays.

 

[Nix]

This is an interesting question then:

Would an employer be more favourable from an Oxbridge student with a 1st or an ex-Poly student with a pass or distinction in a Masters?

 

[spirit]

This is an interesting question then:

Would an employer be more favourable from an Oxbridge student with a 1st or an ex-Poly student with a pass or distinction in a Masters?

i recon 1st oxbridge tbh and it also depends what subject they do.. i mean stuff like theology etc doesnt compare with PPE etc

 

[Rich_L]

This is an interesting question then:

Would an employer be more favourable from an Oxbridge student with a 1st or an ex-Poly student with a pass or distinction in a Masters?

1st from Oxbridge I reckon, bear in mind that Oxbridge students get a Masters a couple of years after graduating anyway

 

[cleanbluesky]

This is an interesting question then:

Would an employer be more favourable from an Oxbridge student with a 1st or an ex-Poly student with a pass or distinction in a Masters?

That is an extremely varied questin, it would depend on what the Masters was in and what the job was...

Sometimes over-qualification can be an issue but probably not with Masters as they are usually quite speicific in comparison to degrees

 

[NickXX]

This is an interesting question then:

Would an employer be more favourable from an Oxbridge student with a 1st or an ex-Poly student with a pass or distinction in a Masters?

1st from Oxbridge, by a LONG margin.

The only possible way that the guy with a masters would stand a chance if it was very relevant to the job - I.e. something along the lines of engineering, compared to an Oxbridge student doing an unrelated course.

There is no way the two would compare otherwise.

 

[Nix]

The whole education argument annoys me to be honest with you.

Some people just aren't lucky enough to goto the good schools. If your parents can't afford to live in a good area / supply bus fare or any other number of extenuating factors, their child may not be able to attend the schools where they will achieve more. The child may have the academic ability, but will be reduced to 'average' or 'below average' because their school isn't as good as it could be. Any child within reason will get the good grades if you ship them off to good schools. So when you think about it, the country is still very class based and employment works on a very bourgeois system.

I'm one of those less fortunate in that sense. Although I don't consider myself hard-done by at all. My secondary school was dire and I hated every moment of my A-Levels but I've got to university. I'm the first in my family to goto university and that means something to me.

Personally, if I was an employer though, I would prefer to choose an average graduate with a 2:1 over an Oxbridge student with a 1st with no common sense. I know quite a few people that are very educated but can't tell their backside from their elbow because they've led a very sheltered life.

I know you can't compare degrees but surely, if both student A and student B have a degree in subject X, they are strictly speaking on equal terms. They're both qualified. It's when you bring in the bourgeois factor that the balance becomes incredibley skewed. If you ask me, education should be under strict set standards where the teaching etc is equal and therefore those who do actually achieve are truely representative. Unfortuneately this is not an ideal world and it's a lot easier said than done.

If employers are going to just shun those with degrees from the less prestigious universities, then why do the students bother?

 

[w11tho]

So the point I am making is that the quality of the department must have some bearing or they wouldn't be doing so well in terms of graduate employment rate.

Hmmm, I'm still not convinced I'm afraid. As I mentioned earlier, the course you go to will be aimed at the level laid down by its entrance requirements. As the OP has found, employers at the top end will not even interview if your A-Level grades aren't high enough, which is synonymous with requiring the degree you studied was aimed at a high level.

And depts can get good ratings for all sorts of things totally unrelated to its undergraduate courses. Going to a good dept does not necessarily mean the course will be top notch.

 

[w11tho]

Some people just aren't lucky enough to goto the good schools. If your parents can't afford to live in a good area / supply bus fare or any other number of extenuating factors, their child may not be able to attend the schools where they will achieve more. The child may have the academic ability, but will be reduced to 'average' or 'below average' because their school isn't as good as it could be. Any child within reason will get the good grades if you ship them off to good schools. So when you think about it, the country is still very class based and employment works on a very bourgeois system.

I'm sorry, but someone with genuine academic talent will do well regardless of schooling. The good school argument only comes into play when we talk about making average students look above average etc. Making out that the entirity of your pre-university education will be totally determined by your school is wrong IMHO - it's far more down to the indivdual.

Personally, if I was an employer though, I would prefer to choose an average graduate with a 2:1 over an Oxbridge student with a 1st with no common sense. I know quite a few people that are very educated but can't tell their backside from their elbow because they've led a very sheltered life.

Well of course, no employer would want to hire someone who doesn't know their farce from their elbow. But what makes you think the Oxbridge student will have that defect? The vast majority of people at Oxbridge are perfectly normal people, who just happen to have an aptitude in their chosen subject.

I know you can't compare degrees but surely, if both student A and student B have a degree in subject X, they are strictly speaking on equal terms. They're both qualified. It's when you bring in the bourgeois factor that the balance becomes incredibley skewed. If you ask me, education should be under strict set standards where the teaching etc is equal and therefore those who do actually achieve are truely representative. Unfortuneately this is not an ideal world and it's a lot easier said than done.

The problem lies in the fact that we're not all the same. Some people are better than others, some people worse. You can't expect to throw such a huge number of 17/18/19 yr olds together and hope that they can all absorb the same material at the same pace. That's why there are entrance requirements to these courses, so the material can be aimed at an appropriate level. So after guy X and guy Y come out with their degrees, just because they're in the same subject, and of the same grade, doesn't mean they're on equal terms on knowledge and ability. It's entirely dependant on the course they've been on, and the exams they've sat.

If employers are going to just shun those with degrees from the less prestigious universities, then why do the students bother?

Because Mr Blair and his army have decided to instill in young people that further education is the way to go. If I was to suggest that 50% of 17yr olds should aim to play sport at a county level, I'd be laughed at. But if I suggest to put 50% of 18yr olds into University to excel academically, it would seem I'd be elected priminister.

 

[Nix]

I'm sorry, but someone with genuine academic talent will do well regardless of schooling. The good school argument only comes into play when we talk about making average students look above average etc. Making out that the entirity of your pre-university education will be totally determined by your school is wrong IMHO - it's far more down to the indivdual.

Do you have any personal experience of this? Let me tell you, I have a wealth of knowledge regarding this and my opinion is what it is for that reason.

People are made not born.

Do you really expect that student A will excell over student B when student B has all the material and best teaching available, small classes and the focus of a teacher and student A has none of these? What's the say student A will excell over student B? Motivation? Natural academic ability? No. You're not born with knowledge, you aquire it. Also, as I've been there, I can tell you, even the brightest students lose motivation when their education is poor.

 

[w11tho]

Do you have any personal experience of this? Let me tell you, I have a wealth of knowledge regarding this and my opinion is what it is for that reason.

I come from the lowest performing state school in Wales (at the time I left), which has far more than its fair share of problems. So yes, I do think I'm qualified to talk about such things.

Do you really expect that student A will excell over student B when student B has all the material and best teaching available, small classes and the focus of a teacher and student A has none of these? What's the say student A will excell over student B? Motivation? Natural academic ability? No. You're not born with knowledge, you aquire it. Also, as I've been there, I can tell you, even the brightest students lose motivation when their education is poor.

Really? Because people in my school got by. Sure, we didn't get any handouts, and had to do a lot of things off our own back. Just because you don't have the best education, it doesn't mean you can't do well for yourself. Putting total blame on your schooling instead of your own ability is what I disagree with.

 

[spirit]

I don't think so, i've met plenty of people who went to frankly rubbish schools where people were more interested in mucking about and disrupting the lessons. They couldn't afford many of the books etc etc. Yet they have come out with very very good grades and gone to top unis. I am amazed by what they have done, but i think someone who is smart and wants it will always do well regardless of what school they goto.

 

[ballistic]

1st from Oxbridge I reckon, bear in mind that Oxbridge students get a Masters a couple of years after graduating anyway

yes but it's not a real masters, but yes Oxford student would be prefered, unless the masters student got a masters from one of the other big ones like imperial, lse, cambridge

 

[Nix]

I come from the lowest performing state school in Wales (at the time I left), which has far more than its fair share of problems. So yes, I do think I'm qualified to talk about such things.


Really? Because people in my school got by. Sure, we didn't get any handouts, and had to do a lot of things off our own back. Just because you don't have the best education, it doesn't mean you can't do well for yourself. Putting total blame on your schooling instead of your own ability is what I disagree with.

I don't blame my schooling, read up. I said I don't feel hard done by. I've made the best of the situation given to me, but to say I could excell just as much as those with more fortunate surroundings is just being naive.

Also, by your argument, if a less-fortunate child managed to make the most of him/herself, surely that means that their degree would be more valid than those of the more fortunate?

Really? Because people in my school got by. Sure, we didn't get any handouts, and had to do a lot of things off our own back. Just because you don't have the best education, it doesn't mean you can't do well for yourself. Putting total blame on your schooling instead of your own ability is what I disagree with.

Then what was so different about your school to mine? Out of my entire year, I'm one of a very, very small minority that actually went to or managed to get into university. The others that I'm aware of are doing, in my eyes rather pointless degrees. Only a couple of us are doing anything resembeling a traditional degree.

 

[spirit]

Also, by your argument, if a less-fortunate child managed to make the most of him/herself, surely that means that their degree would be more valid than those of the more fortunate?

Yeah, tbh their results are worth more. Thats why they are often given lower offers from unis etc.

 

[Nix]

Yeah, tbh their results are worth more. Thats why they are often given lower offers from unis etc.

We're comparing two scales of academia here. An A student's ability who's been fortunate to have the best schooling may in reality be equal to that of a student attaining B-Cs with relatively no/terrible schooling.

 

[p4radox]

Do you have any personal experience of this? Let me tell you, I have a wealth of knowledge regarding this and my opinion is what it is for that reason.

People are made not born.

Do you really expect that student A will excell over student B when student B has all the material and best teaching available, small classes and the focus of a teacher and student A has none of these? What's the say student A will excell over student B? Motivation? Natural academic ability? No. You're not born with knowledge, you aquire it. Also, as I've been there, I can tell you, even the brightest students lose motivation when their education is poor.

I'd like to say that it's a mixture of schooling and talent. Not everyone can excel just because they have the best education, and many who don't have the best education will excel.

A lot is down to the determination of the individual.

 

[spirit]

We're comparing two scales of academia here. An A student's ability who's been fortunate to have the best schooling may in reality be equal to that of a student attaining B-Cs with relatively no/terrible schooling.

errr... that was my point... their grades are worth more...

However, it is not always the case.

 

[w11tho]

I don't blame my schooling, read up.

It certainly sounds like your making out that you'd have done a lot better if it weren't for your schooling.

Also, by your argument, if a less-fortunate child managed to make the most of him/herself, surely that means that their degree would be more valid than those of the more fortunate?

Why would it? The achievement of getting into a top University might be classed as slightly higher, but from there on in you're on the same course and sitting the same exams as all the other people. And just to clarify, there's no argument here - we just have a difference of opinion.

Then what was so different about your school to mine? Out of my entire year, I'm one of a very, very small minority that actually went to or managed to get into university. The others that I'm aware of are doing, in my eyes rather pointless degrees. Only a couple of us are doing anything resembeling a traditional degree.

I'd go as far to say it's unlikely that your school was as bad as mine (but lets not start a my school was crapper than yours willy waving contest), and there were lots of people that didn't do well. But of those, their lack of achievement was down to lack of ability, or lack of effort. It was not down to the quality of the lessons.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I certainly agree that good schooling can increase your performence in exams a little. But in my eyes, if you're genuinely good at your subject, you'll do well (with some work) regardless of your schooling.