Computing. I was looking at graduate IT positions.
As it turns out, I am better off now than I would have been on 80% of graduate schemes, but good A levels definately do help.
Importance of A-Levels
- Thread starter Sudden
- Start date
Computing. I was looking at graduate IT positions.
As it turns out, I am better off now than I would have been on 80% of graduate schemes, but good A levels definately do help.
Someone mentioned earlier bout firms not looking at a-levels if you re-sit them rather than get them the first time round. Think I read that as well on a couple of sites.
If most firms are like that, even looking into re-sitting a module would be a waste of time wouldn't it? I'm at 300 points currently, and retaking one would easily push me to 320, but if it's a waste anyway...
hmm, looks like it's do well at uni and hope for the best? would it make any difference where the degree is from?
If most firms are like that, even looking into re-sitting a module would be a waste of time wouldn't it? I'm at 300 points currently, and retaking one would easily push me to 320, but if it's a waste anyway...
hmm, looks like it's do well at uni and hope for the best? would it make any difference where the degree is from?
I would have imagined that you did a years work and got an AS, therefore you should be credited and have it added to your overall UCAS.
I got 6 UCAS points yet a 1st in engineering. My company weren't interested in my A levels.
Ive found that A-levels are still important, and getting 320 points is essential. As is getting a 2.1 from your degree.
They matter simply because they are what got you accepted into your university.
If you got rubbish grades, you probably went to a rubbish university. If you got 300+ points, you got a proper education.
Employers know that a 2.1 from Greenwich uni is not the same as a 2.1 from Nottingham uni.
The BTEC-Alevel equivalency is BS too. They may be seen by UCAS as holding the same points, but the world certaintly doesnt see them like that.
They matter simply because they are what got you accepted into your university.
If you got rubbish grades, you probably went to a rubbish university. If you got 300+ points, you got a proper education.
Employers know that a 2.1 from Greenwich uni is not the same as a 2.1 from Nottingham uni.
The BTEC-Alevel equivalency is BS too. They may be seen by UCAS as holding the same points, but the world certaintly doesnt see them like that.
Eh, so i got A level equivalent of AAA? So as long as you get 3 distinctions out of 16 modules you get AAA
Got 2:1 at uni in business computing
nope!
those subject grades have to be put into a btec calculatroy thing which then gives you a final grade in threee simple letters
to get a DDD ( AAA ) youd have to get a distinction in almost EVERY subject/module
if you did the 16 unit award its something like
pass - 2 points
mertit - 4 points
distinction - 6 points
then theres tiers eg
32 points - 40 would be pass pass pass
90 - 96 or something would be the DDD
its pretty complicated lol , i had a table that worked it out but cant find it no more
Last edited:
Getting UCAS 240 points, and going to a medicore university and achieving a 1st, may be an achievement. But it still makes you less well-rounded than the person that got 320 points, and got a 2.1 from a top university.
How does the world see them then?
I take it with my BTEC national 'AAA' in computing I would have more chance going for a technical job than a more general job in english, french, biology etc as i did not do anytihng to do with them in my computing degree
Also I chose a met uni as I didnt think i would be good enough for a 'proper' uni. Once I saw facilities of my campus and where i would be living i was certainly not going to change my mind. Jobs arn't all about technical skills, if you are good at something but have the social skills of a peasant then you wont get the job!
apart from oxford/cambridge you could get into anywhere with a DDD in an engineering BTEC
i got an offer from shefield that if i got DDM i could go there unconditionally , manchester etc gave the same offers to mates
once youve got a good degree from those places you would easily find a job
its 2007 everyone stopped been so snobby years ago
Only to pretentious, elitist muppets. If anything, the person who got the 1st has obviously applied himself and is just as capable as the 2.1 student who went to a better establishment. All that would indicate to me is that there were some extenuating circumstances for the student who gained the 1st during their A-Levels. I'd even argue that they were more rounded as they've had to fight to get where they are.
im pretty sure theres nothing worse than an a level student going to do engineering at red brick unis with his AAA in sciences and maths and not even having a clue about anything practical
they then get a job and start dishing out complete unpractical orders and planning things that are near impossible for the poor workman at the other end to do
atleast the BTEC teaches the practical stuff aswell as the basics in all sorts of other subjects that will be needed at uni
they then get a job and start dishing out complete unpractical orders and planning things that are near impossible for the poor workman at the other end to do
atleast the BTEC teaches the practical stuff aswell as the basics in all sorts of other subjects that will be needed at uni
Most major employers insist on minimum Alevels of BBB or they wont even read your CV nevermind ask you to interview.
I remember the FT wanting something daft like AAB before you could apply.
The problem with degree's is that you can't easily compare them against each other like Alevels.
If two people did the same board for an Alevel, then you can say "person who got the A" is better at maths per say than the "Person who got a B".
You'd be suprised just how much difference there is between degree programs in the same subject. I mean look at the quality of staff differences, some lecturers at Man Met for example don't hold PhD's!
To be honest if I was an employer and the person didn't have a degree in a hard science subject from a top university I'd trust their Alevel results more than any degree result.
Davem
I remember the FT wanting something daft like AAB before you could apply.
The problem with degree's is that you can't easily compare them against each other like Alevels.
If two people did the same board for an Alevel, then you can say "person who got the A" is better at maths per say than the "Person who got a B".
You'd be suprised just how much difference there is between degree programs in the same subject. I mean look at the quality of staff differences, some lecturers at Man Met for example don't hold PhD's!
To be honest if I was an employer and the person didn't have a degree in a hard science subject from a top university I'd trust their Alevel results more than any degree result.
Davem
Yeh though something like this sounnded more correct. So i got 54 meaning something on the lines of BBC or BCC
You aren't factoring in the degree subject at all...
Just using the Guardian list as a handy guide, Sussex comes 25th overall, not fantastic you might say, yet it is ranked first for chemistry.
Look at the rankings for agriculture and forestry.
So yes, the 'top' universities may lead the list overall and indeed for the majority of the more traditional subjects, but going to what you label as mediocre universities doesn't automatically write you off as an inferior employment prospect.
Even though universities are increasingly considering other measures to distinguish between A-level students given how so many come through with straight A's these days?